Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MR. PETER ARTHUR DAVID BAKER

Address for certified copies of the indictment, conviction and sentence of the Court in the case of The Queen against Peter Arthur David Baker, a Member of this House, tried at the Central Criminal Court on 30th November, 1954;

And a certificate from the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Wormwood Scrubs that the said Peter Arthur David Baker is held in custody by him in pursuance of the said sentence. —[Major Lloyd-George.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING VALUATION

Mr. Houghton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what general increase in gross rateable values of business premises may be expected in the valuation lusts for the municipal borough of Todmorden and the urban districts of Hebden Royd, Sowerby Bridge, Elland and Ripponden, respectively;
(2) whether he will authorise local valuation officers of the Inland Revenue Department to disclose to, and discuss with, local chambers of trade and other representative bodies the changes in valuation for rating of dwelling-houses, business and industrial premises likely to be reflected in the new valuation lists now in preparation, so that misunderstandings and groundless fears may be removed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): It would be wrong to disclose any forecasts of new assessments until the complete lists are published for inspection by the public.

Mr. Houghton: Does not the Minister think that it is unsatisfactory that smouldering fears and discontents should continue for another 18 months? Does he not realise that revaluation may be endangered by the force of grievances which is gathering behind it; and may I appeal to him, since this work is completed and the assessments are lying there now to be inspected and discussed, to consider devising some means of anticipating the date—April, 1956—and so smooth the passage for this great change in the basis of valuation for rating?

Mr. Deedes: I do not think that the fears to which the hon. Gentleman alludes would be allayed by publication of the figures he suggests, because information about certain classes of property in certain lists would often be misleading to individual ratepayers. So long as there are these internal discrepancies and inconsistencies, publication of the figures would not serve the purpose which he has in mind.

Mr. Houghton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered representations from chambers of trade regarding the valuation for rating of business premises, and asking for amendment of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Deedes: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 6th December to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

Mr. Houghton: Are steps being taken to circulate copies of that very comprehensive statement to local chambers of trade and others who have been sending letters to hon. Members of this House recently?

Mr. Deedes: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I think that my right hon. Friend's statement has already received wide circulation. As to the second part, I think that all hon. Members who desire copies of it have been able to receive as many as they wish to have.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Temporary Houses (Sale)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what towns are affected by his proposed sale of temporary prefabricated houses; how many such houses are to be sold in each of these towns; and if he will give an assurance that he will not sell any of these houses until he has been assured by the local authority concerned that the occupants have been satisfactorily re-housed.

Mr. Deedes: Forty-one local authorities have said that they may want some of their temporary houses removed during 1955. Precise figures are not yet available, though the total amounts probably to about 2,000. Only vacant houses will be offered for sale.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that, provided it is seen that those who are evicted are given alternative accommodation, it will give great satisfaction to the country that the Government's housing programme has progressed so far as to make possible a start on replacing these temporary dwellings by permanent dwellings?

Mr. Deedes: The question of alternative accommodation, as my hon. Friend no doubt realises, is primarily a matter for the local authorities.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce amending legislation to the Housing Act, 1949, to permit local authorities to make grants to householders for improvement works in cases where application for a grant have been rejected solely because, through ignorance of the law, they were not submitted until after the work had been started.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): No, Sir.

Mr. Holt: Would not the Minister agree that, at the present day, when many laws are so complicated and citizens cannot be expected to know them all, it is unfortunate when a citizen in one house gets paid a grant and another in a house in the same street does not,

because he did not know the details of the law?

Mr. Sandys: In general, I agree that the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse is a very bad principle, but in this particular case, I feel—[Interruption.] Have I got it the wrong way round? If so, I meant to say that I feel that ignorance of the law is a jolly good excuse, but in this case it is not really a matter of ignorance of the law. I feel that the provision which this law contains, that prior approval must be obtained before the works for which a grant is to be claimed are started, is a very reasonable safeguard against waste of public money.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the real trouble the ignorance of the law itself?

Mr. Sandys: Everyone is ignorant of the law.

Mr. K. Thompson: In view of the complications that often attend applications of this kind, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider sending a circular to local authorities, asking them to have an officer available at the council offices to give comprehensive replies to the inquiries of those who wish to embark on these schemes?

Mr. Sandys: Let me make it quite clear that I am very much in favour of everybody possible availing themselves of these facilities. If there is anything that I can 'do to bring the facilities more prominently to the notice of all concerned, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what grants have been made by him to the borough councils of Shaftesbury, and Blandford, the urban council of Wimborne, the rural district councils of Sturminster-Newton, Shaftesbury and Gillingham, Blandford and Wimborne, and Cranborne under the Housing Act, 1949, for the repair of houses for each of the years ended 31st October, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954; and what applications for grants have separately been received from these several councils under the 1954 Act.

Mr. Deedes: I assume that both parts of the Question refer to grants for


improvements and conversions. As the answer must involve tabulated figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: I appreciate that many figures are involved, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress made by all the local authorities which are

DWELLINGS IN RESPECT OF WHICH GRANTS UNDER PART II OF THE HOUSING ACT, 1949, HAVE BEEN APPROVED


Local authority
Period
Work to be done by
Total


Local authorities
Private persons


Conversion
Improvement
Conversion
Improvement


Blandford Borough Council.
Nil
—
—
—
—
—


Shaftesbury Borough Council.
April-October, 1954
—
—
—
2
2


Wimborne Urban District Council.
Year ended 31st








March, 1954
—
—
—
2
2



April-October, 1954
—
—
—
3
3



TOTAL
—
—
—
5
5


Blandford Rural District Council.
Year ended 31st








March, 1954
—
—
—
4
4



April-October, 1954
—
—
3
43
46



TOTAL
—
—
3
47
50


Shaftesbury Rural District Council.
To 31st March, 1951
—
—
—
1
1



Year ended:








31st March, 1952
—
—
—
—
—



31st March, 1953
—
—
1
3
4



31st March, 1954
—
—
—
—
—



April-October, 1954
—
—
—
2
2



TOTAL
—
—
1
6
7


Sturminster Rural District Council.
To 31st March, 1951
—
—
2
2
4



Year ended:








31st March, 1952
—
—
—
2
2



31st March, 1953
—
2
—
—
2



31st March, 1954
—
—
—
—
—



April-October, 1954
—
—
—
18
18



TOTAL
—
2
2
22
26


Wimborne and Cranborne Rural District Council.
Year ended:








31st March, 1953
—
—
—
3
3



31st March, 1954
—
—
—
11
11



April-October, 1954
—
—
—
36
36



TOTAL
—
—
—
50
50

mentioned? How do they compare with other local authorities in the region?

Mr. Deedes: With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, comparisons are not readily available. With regard to the first part, there is always room for improvement.

Following is the answer:




APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS RECEIVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, JUNE-OCTOBER, 1954


Local authority
Private enterprise
Housing Association
Monthly receipts of applications



Conversion
Improvement
Conversion
Improvement




Blandford Borough Council.
—
—
—
—



Shaftesbury Borough Council.
—
3
—
—
Improvement(Private enterprise)



June: 1



July: 2


Wimborne Urban District Council.
—
6
—
—
Improvement(Private enterprise)



July: 1



September: 4



October: 1


Blandford Rural District Council.
4
59
—
—
Conversion(Private enterprise)
Improvement(Private enterprise)



July: 1
June: 12



September: 3
July: 9




September: 32




October: 6


Shaftesbury Rural District Council.
—
15
—
—
Improvement(Private enterprise)



June: 1



July: 6



August: 4



September: 2



October: 2


Sturminster Rural District Council.
—
13
—
2
Improvement(Private enterprise)
Improvement(Housing Association)



June: 3
July: 2



August: 7




September: 2




October: 1



Wimborne and Cranborne Rural District Council.
—
21
—
8
Improvement(Private enterprise)
Improvement(Housing Association)



June: 3
September: 8



July: 3




August: 1




October: 14

Building Programme

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the numbers of houses completed annually for 1948 to 1953, respectively, by the Rugby local authority; and what are the housing allocations for 1954 and 1955, respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many new houses he estimates will be provided in 1955 by local authorities and private builders, respectively.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why

he has reduced Coventry's allocation of new municipal houses for the next year from 2,000 to 1,500; and whether he is aware that the proposed new total is inadequate for the city's housing need.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what instructions he has given to his regional officials with regard to the allocation of houses to be built by local authorities in the year 1955;
(2) How many houses are likely to be completed by local authorities for the year ended 31st December; and how many he anticipates they will build in the year ending 31st December, 1955.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) why he has cut the allocation of council houses at Knottingley and refused permission for the building of houses in accordance with its plans;
(2) why he has refused to allow the Goole Council to build 183 houses and flats next year, and cuts its allocation to 123;
(3) how many local authorities have had their housing plans for next year reduced by his action; and the total number of council houses and flats for which he has refused permission to build.

Mr. Sandys: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for Rugby asked for in the first part of Question No. 8.
The number of subsidised houses built for letting in Great Britain during the present year is likely to be somewhat over 250,000 including about 220,000 built by local authorities. In addition some 90,000 houses will be provided by private enterprise.
It is not customary to publish figures of authorisations, or forecasts of completions in respect of future years. I can, however, say that the authorisations already issued or shortly to be issued should be sufficient to enable local authorities to complete about the same number of houses next year as they have done this year, which is an all-time record.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking the Minister in anticipation for the figures which I hope to get—whatever they may be—may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the very acute housing shortage in Rugby, due to the influx of workers for the booming export industries of engineering and cars? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is the Minister aware of the disappointment at the number of houses which have been built, and will he look sympathetically on any future request by the town council for an increase in its housing allocation?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad to hear that prosperity has come to Rugby—

Mr. Johnson: It has always been there.

Mr. Sandys: —though this may create increased problems. Naturally I will consider any representations which the

hon. Member or the council wish to make.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware that his omnibus reply will not be well received in Coventry, where there are 10,000 people on the housing list? Is he further aware that there is general dissatisfaction with his under-the-counter method of altering the housing ratio, and in those circumstances is he prepared to receive a deputation from the Coventry City Council about this matter?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "under-the-counter method of altering the ratio." If he means the ratio between local authorities and private enterprise, I can assure him that we are not working to any fixed ratio whatsoever as between local authority and private enterprise building. This criticism comes ill, both from him and from other hon. Members opposite, in that in their best year the previous Government provided 195,000 houses to let, whereas, as I have just announced, in the present year we are providing over 250,000 houses.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister be good enough to give an answer to my Question, which he lumped in with several others? Why has he refused to allow councils to build as many houses as they had planned to do during next year? Will he also say why, as his predecessor instructed local authorities to go full steam ahead and build as many council houses as they could, he is now restricting them in the fulfilment of the plans which they had prepared?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that the hon. Member heard my answer—

Mr. Jeger: I listened carefully.

Mr. Sandys: —in which I said, and I will read out the passage again to make it quite clear:
…authorisations already issued or shortly to be issued should be sufficient to enable local authorities to complete about the same number of houses next year as they have done this year, which is an all-time record.

Mr. Fernyhough: Since Her Majesty's Government recently decided to abolish all licences, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that local authorities will be able to obtain all the materials which they require in order to maintain


a housing programme in 1955 of not less than that which they were able to complete in 1954?

Mr. Sandys: I have not referred to building materials. I have said that we have issued sufficient authorisations to enable local authorities to complete as many houses in 1955 as they completed during this last year, and I have every reason to believe that the necessary materials will be available.

Mr. Jay: Do the figures of houses built to let which the Minister has given include houses to be built by private enterprise, and not allocated by local authorities according to need?

Mr. Sandys: In my reply I referred to subsidised houses built for letting. That includes the houses of local authorities, housing associations, and various other agencies, but it does not include houses built by private enterprise to let without subsidy.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Why is the right hon. Gentleman trying to cover the fact that all over the country he or his regional representatives have been making savage and indeed callous cuts in council housing programmes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The figures provided will substantiate that accusation. Why is he taking houses started in 1952 into the calculation for the purpose of bolstering up these purely fictitious figures? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the Minister explain which local authorities have had their housing allocations so vastly increased as to more than outweigh the savage cuts already made all over the country in respect of the 1955 council housing programmes?

Mr. Sandys: I think that there is a misunderstanding about all this. As was pointed out by my predecessor several times, the issue of authorisations is a continuing process. Those that are at present being issued relate partly to building in 1955 and partly to building in 1956—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: There have been savage cuts.

Mr. Sandys: It is no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman or other hon. Members opposite trying to stir up controversy over housing—[Laughter.] They may laugh, but the only result will be to remind the country of their own ignominious record.

Following are the figures of local authority houses completed since the war in Rugby:


1st April, 1945 to 31st Dec., 1946
46


1947
129


1948
539


1949
70


1950
102


1951
58


1952
116


1953
189

Ex-Service Men

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken with local authorities to make it easier for ex-Service men to obtain houses on the conclusion of their time in the Services.

Mr. Sandys: Valuable recommendations relating to this problem are contained in the latest report of the Housing Management Sub-Committee, which I shall shortly be sending to local authorities for their consideration.

Brigadier Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our whole recruiting problem depends upon his taking some positive action with local authorities to obtain houses for ex-Service men when they leave the Army?

Mr. Sandys: I am very well aware of this problem and am giving it some attention myself. The difficulty is that in most cases these men have no residential qualifications in the areas in which they want to live, and we must do something to tackle that problem.

Defects

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, he will withhold his consent to borrowing approval for housing projects submitted by local authorities unless the contract contains a guarantee by the contractor to make good defects appearing in the first two years after completion.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that many shoddy houses are being built, and that the present system is proving inadequate? Is he also aware that in the case of my own local authority considerable maintenance costs have to be met in respect of houses which have been erected for less than one year, especially for electrical fittings? Will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Sandys: On the whole this is a matter which local authorities should be allowed to settle for themselves. In most cases they insist upon a period of six months during which defects can be pointed out and repairs done.

Homeless Persons (Accommodation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has of the number of persons who are now in hostels, rest centres, or half-way homes, because they were homeless through eviction or otherwise; and what percentage have been using such accommodation for over two years.

Mr. Deedes: About 7,800 persons, representing 2,150 families. I cannot say what percentage have been using such accommodation for over two years.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these unhappy people have been living in this kind of accommodation for as long as five years? Could anything be done to bring special attention to bear on the situation of this very unfortunate category of people?

Mr. Deedes: We are aware that there are certain special problem families who have been there between two and five years, and continual efforts are being made to provide the individual adjustments which have to be made in each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Smethwick Development Plan

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to publish his decision upon the Smethwick Development Plan.

Mr. Sandys: I hope to arrange for officials of my Department to meet representatives of the Smethwick Borough Council early in the New Year to discuss certain modifications which appear desirable.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that it has taken two-and-a-half years since the public inquiry was held, and that such inordinate delay causes great anxiety to local authority and business interests in such a borough?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, I realise that. But very important and difficult issues are involved, and if, by taking a little longer, mistakes can be avoided, I think that it will be time well spent.

Private Roads (Making-up)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Private Street Works Act. 1892, so as to provide authority and financial grants to local authorities to make up unmade roads where such roads are in a dangerous condition.

Mr. Sandys: Local authorities already have statutory power to make up private roads. But I am not convinced that financial assistance from the Exchequer would really be justified.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the Minister investigate this archaic system? Is not he aware that very heavy charges are now being levied upon comparatively poor people who are unfortunate enough to reside in private streets which ought to be taken over by local housing authorities? Is not it about time that a system was introduced—where there are many of these streets, unfortunately inherited from the past—whereby the financial burden would be spread a little wider than it is at present?

Mr. Sandys: Under the existing law it could be spread a lot wider than it is. Local authorities themselves have the power to contribute to the cost of these roads, but they very seldon do so.

Coast Protection (Exchequer Grants)

Mr. N. Nicolson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) on what basis he assesses the capacity of a local authority to pay for new coast protection works; and whether he will increase the Exchequer grant towards such works;
(2) whether he will pay from Exchequer funds the full cost of restoring the sea defences damaged in the recent gales.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the burden falling on those local authorities whose sea defences have been


damaged in the autumn gales; and if he will make a grant against the full cost of restoring such defences.

Mr. Sandys: Each application for grant is considered individually, having regard to the cost of the scheme and the financial resources of the local authority concerned. I will consider sympathetically any application for grant towards the cost of restoring sea defences damaged in the recent gales, but I cannot promise to meet the whole cost.

Mr. Nicolson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gales which have caused the recent damage are not exceptional but are likely to recur annually, and are putting an intolerable charge upon local authorities? Does he agree that coast protection works should be mainly a national charge and should not fall upon small boroughs and individuals who are defending the whole country in defending their own properties?

Mr. Sandys: That is quite a big issue of policy, which I do not think is suitable to deal with in reply to a supplementary question.

Brigadier Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the difficulties in this matter is the fact that small local authorities are rightly hesitant about embarking upon this heavy expenditure, which should be undertaken in good time to anticipate these gales in future years?

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister also bear in mind that rural local authorities in counties like Cornwall have very long coast lines and very small rate revenues with which to meet the cost of coast protection? Will he consider sympathetically all applications received in regard to this matter and make substantial grants?

Mr. Sandys: There is no lack of sympathy, but one must not always allow one's sympathy to decide the handling of public finances.

Staunton Harold Hall, Leicestershire

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement with regard to the future of Staunton Harold Hall, Leicestershire.

Mr. Sandys: The owner has given notice that he wishes to demolish this

house. I understand that the Leicestershire County Council is considering making a building preservation order.

New Streets Act, 1951

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he appreciates the difficulties rural district councils are encountering owing to the refusal of the county councils concerned to apply for orders under the provisions of the New Streets Act, 1951; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of this Act, he will consider the introduction of amending legislation.

Mr. Sandys: I am aware that the New Streets Act, 1951, has caused dissatisfaction. The desirability of amending legislation is being considered.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the urgency of the problem for rural councils? Does he realise that more development of new streets and new roads is probably taking place in rural areas than in urban and borough areas?

Mr. Sandys: I believe that this Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill. If any hon. Member should wish to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend it and to deal with this problem, I should be prepared to consider supporting it.

Mr. Pannell: Does not the Minister consider that his answer is a trifle unfair? When the Private Member's Bill was introduced, the Minister's Department gave it some sort of beneficent overlooking. If any anomalies exist in the Act surely they rest not upon the private Member but upon the House, and upon his Department for the guidance which it gave?

Mr. Sandys: I hope that I was not casting any reflections upon any hon. Member. If legislation which subsequently proves unsatisfactory is passed, the whole House is obviously responsible.

Regional Office, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that he will retain his Department's regional office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. Sandys: Our regional office at Newcastle will be retained; but the size of the staff and the scope of their functions will be reduced.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this decision will be warmly welcomed by local authorities in the North-East? Can he say whether the reduction in staff will lead to any slowing down of matters relating to housing which are put to the regional office by local authorities?

Mr. Sandys: I hope not.

Slum Clearance Schemes

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many schemes for slum clearance have been submitted during 1954; and how many of these schemes have been submitted by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

Mr. Deedes: From 1st January to 30th November, 1954, local authorities in England and Wales submitted 298 slum clearance compulsory purchase orders and 228 clearance orders. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the fact that that answer said that Newcastle had not submitted any, will the Minister consider trying to stir up the Newcastle Corporation to get on with this vital work, which it is showing no keenness to do itself?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member can do at least as much there as I can.

Land (Compulsory Purchase Payments)

Mr. J. T. Hall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to be able to pay the compensation due under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for land compulsorily purchased by local authorities.

Mr. Sandys: The Central Land Board will start making payments as soon as possible after 1st January.

Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of

the Exchequer promised that this money would be paid this year, and that many people are disappointed because it has not been paid?

Mr. Sandys: There is not an awfully long time between now and 1st January.

Middlesex Development Plan

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the uncertainty, inconvenience and hardship occasioned by the continued delay in making a decision with regard to the Middlesex County Development Plan, if he will expedite his consideration of this matter.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, as much as possible.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor promised me 12 months ago that a decision would be given in the second half of this year, and that this promise appears to stand very little chance of being fulfilled? Will he not do something a little extra in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: I will try to do a lot extra, if I can, but a great deal of work is involved in this plan, which affects 2¼ million people. There were 7,500 objections to it, all of which had to be very carefully considered. We will expedite it as much as possible, but I am afraid that it will still take several months.

Town Development Act, 1952 (Schemes)

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many schemes have been submitted to his Department under the Town Development Act, 1952; the date of the first scheme, and the names of the places involved; and when his decisions might be expected to be announced.

Mr. Deedes: Seven—Ashford, Aylesbury, Bletchley, Letchworth. St. Albans, Swindon and Worsley. Discussions took place on all these schemes before proposals were formulated, and the first to be approved was the Swindon scheme, in April, 1954. Approval has since been given to the Bletchley scheme; those for Ashford, Letchworth and Worsley are still under consideration, while the St. Albans scheme is not being proceeded with.

Hatfield New Town Corporation (New Members)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. LINDGREN: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the qualifications of the two new members he proposes to appoint to the Halifax New Town Development Corporation; the source from which the recommendation to appoint was made; and whether the local authorities in the area were consulted prior to his announcement of the names of the persons he proposed to appoint.

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order. May I point out that the word "Halifax" in the second line of the Question, should read Hatfield?

Mr. Sandys: It would have been helpful if the hon. Member had told me that, but it is not the only inaccuracy in the Question.
The answer to the first two parts of the Question are in the negative. Since I have not yet announced any names, the third part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Lindgren: Is it not a fact that two names have been circulated to the local authorities in the area of persons whom the Minister proposes to appoint, and that the New Towns Act requires the Minister to consult the local authorities prior to making appointments under that Act?

Mr. Sandys: That is just what is happening, and what the hon. Member has described.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely, the Minister will agree that the local authorities should have a right to submit to him nominations for these appointments; but, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has given them what is almost a decision, or the names of the people whom he proposes to appoint?

Mr. Sandys: Not at all; they have been consulted about these two persons, and that is my duty under the Act.

RIVER LEE, CLAPTON (POLLUTION)

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the filth and

stench from the River Lee, in the area of Clapton, are gradually depriving the local inhabitants of the use of the river; and whether he will take steps to deal with this matter.

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. Friend has recently received a complaint about this. I understand that the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, which is the pollution prevention authority for the River Lee, expects improvement when the East Middlesex main drainage scheme is completed.

Mr. Weitzman: In view of the fact that the banks of this river provide a pleasant and much-needed promenade in a heavy populated area; that there has been a considerable volume of protest on the part of the local Press, and strong feeling among rowing clubs and boat owners about the disgraceful state of the river, will the Minister look into this matter very carefully and do what he can to assist?

Mr. Deedes: I am aware that there are strong feelings, but, as the hon. and learned Member knows, a great many factors are associated with this question. I should be very happy to discuss them with him in detail if it would be of any help.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Merseyside (Dockworkers)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for overcoming the anomaly existing in Merseyside of, on the one hand, a level of unemployment above the national average, and, on the other hand, a dock labour shortage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The National Dock Labour Board is responsible for securing that there are sufficient dockworkers for the efficient performance of dock work, and I understand that the Board has authorised the recruitment of 1,000 additional men as a temporary measure on Merseyside.

Mr. Page: May I ask my hon. Friend whether there is any artificial restriction on entrants to the dock labour scheme by the presence of an agreement between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Transport and General Workers'


Union that only those belonging to the union shall be entrants to the scheme? If that is so, does he not consider it an unwise policy, because the country may be paying unemployment benefit to men who might otherwise be doing useful work?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer is that the responsibility for deciding the size of the dock labour registers, which is the relevant consideration, rests entirely with the National Dock Labour Board, and it always consults the local boards.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the present position is the result of the docks stoppage in recent times? The responsible people in the matter which has been raised are the employers and the union—not the Dock Labour Board, which controls the recruitment of labour—and they have agreed to swell the register? Is not the difficulty the fact that under this arrangement there is liable to be a period of redundancy, which those responsible are trying to avoid?

Mr. Watkinson: This is not the only difficulty that arose from the dock strike.

Fife (Labour Shortage)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent there is a shortage of labour in the county of Fife in industries other than coal; and what representations have been made to his Department on this problem in the last 12 months.

Mr. Watkinson: There is a continuing shortage of skilled engineering and building trade workers in Fife, as, indeed, in Scotland as a whole. There is also a recurrent local shortage of skilled dockyard workers and male linoleum and transport workers in Fife. During the past year, a number of employers in these industries have sought the assistance of the employment exchanges in recruiting their labour, and the exchanges have done what they can to help.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister provide any facts and figures to substantiate this claim? Is he aware that local industrialists are continually making this claim without advancing any facts or figures in support of it, whereas, primarily, I think the reason is that they fear the introduction of new light industries to the area?

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Member would like to come to see me, I will give him all the facts, which it is rather difficult to do at Question Time.

Older Workers (Committee's Report)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour when the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women will publish another report; and if he will make a statement about the work of this Committee.

Mr. Watkinson: The Committee will present another report next year. Since the publication of the first Report, the Committee has continued to advise the Minister on further action. I am glad to say that the recommendations of the first Report have been widely accepted by employers, trade unions, and the general public. Many restrictions on the employment of older workers have already been removed. Although we have made some progress, my Committee clearly realises that we still have a very large task in front of us.

Average Weekly Earnings

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour the actual cash increase and the percentage increase, between August, 1946, and the latest convenient date in 1954, in the average weekly earnings per male wage-earner of all workers in all industries, and in the coalmining industry, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: Figures are not available for August, 1946. During the period October, 1946, to April-May, 1954, there was an increase of 76s. 11d. or about 64 per cent. in the average weekly earnings of adult male wage-earners in the manufacturing industries generally together with a number of the principal non-manufacturing industries. Between October, 1946, and May, 1954, the average weekly cash earnings of all adult male workers in the coalmining industry rose by 112s. 6d. or about 78 per cent.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that the general public will read these figures with great interest in the light of the evident reluctance of the party opposite to the payment of another 1s. a week for the benefit of the old people, one of whose major difficulties is the high price of coal?

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, in answer to a Question by me a month ago, he told me that there are 19 million people in this country who, after deductions for tax and insurance, have less than £10 per week?

Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to do with the Question. I was asked to give the average weekly earnings of people engaged in manufacturing industry and in coalmining, and I have given them.

Cleator Moor (Remploy Factory)

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are employed at the Remploy factory at cleator Moor; how many were employed 12 months ago; how many have been engaged during the last 12 months; how many have been discharged during the last 12 months; the reasons for their discharge; and why this factory is not working to full capacity.

Mr. Watkinson: Fifty-nine severely disabled persons were employed at the Cleator Moor Remploy factory on 8th December as compared with 54 a year ago. Twelve engagements have taken place during the year and seven terminations, of which four were on medical grounds, two retired and one returned to ordinary employment. The number of unemployed severely disabled persons suitable for consideration for employment in this factory is at present only eight.

Mr. Anderson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there has been any suspension of employment at the Remploy factory, and, if so, can he give the reason for it? Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether or not the factory is working to capacity?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer is in the figures which I have given. We are now employing five more men than a year ago. There are only eight severely disabled persons suitable for consideration for employment, and we shall get those into the factory as soon as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

West Indian Immigrants

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken by his Department to acquire the information

necessary to call up immigrants from the West Indies in cases where they have a liability under the National Service legislation.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 2nd November, 1954, and add that, where necessary, the information to determine the liability for National Service of any British subject entering Great Britain for the first time is obtained at a personal interview.

Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend consider whether there is any adequate reason why immigrants of all colours should not accept that liability in this country at the same time as they receive the country's benefits?

Mr. Watkinson: This is rather a complicated subject, but if my hon. Friend would like to come to see me, I shall be happy to give him the full details. So far as normal immigrants are concerned, we are quite satisfied that if they are two years in this country they do fulfil their liability for National Service.

National Coal Board (Civil Engineer Trainees)

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour how many young men are deferred from National Service under the National Coal Board training scheme for civil engineers.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that the information is not available and could not be obtained without expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time.

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that civil engineering trainees from the National Coal Board are attached to private civil engineering firms whose own trainees are not deferred from National Service; and whether he will now consider either nullifying the military deferment privileges of National Coal Board trainees or of applying them to the trainees of all civil engineering firms connected with the mining or quarrying industries.

Mr. Watkinson: I am not aware that this does happen, but if my hon. Friend will send me any information that he has I will gladly make inquiries.

PRIME MINISTER AND MARSHAL STALIN (MESSAGES)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish in HANSARD the correspondence relating to the German offensive launched in the Ardennes in 1944 which passed between him and J. V. Stalin in his letter dated 6th January, 1945, Stalin's reply dated 7th January, 1945, and the further letter he sent on 9th January, 1945: what action was taken by the Russians in answer to this communication; and whether he will publish his communication dated 17th January, 1945, sent to J. V. Stalin.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of the telegram requesting aid from the Soviet Command at the time of the German offensive in the Ardennes in the winter of 1944–45.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): The text of the telegram which I sent to Marshal Stalin on 6th January, 1945, asking whether we could count on a major Russian offensive during January, 1945, has already been published, with the reply and my further message of 9th January, on pages 243 and 244 of my Volume VI of "The Second World War." The Russians opened an offensive in January, as Marshal Stalin had said in his message they would, and I am arranging for the further message on this subject which I sent to Marshal Stalin on 16th January, not hitherto published, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
There was also an agreeable interchange of telegrams between me and Marshal Stalin on 25th April, 1945, pages 467–468 of my Volume VI of "The Second World War," which it might interest the hon. Members to read. I understand that sufficient copies of this volume have been made available in the Library to meet the convenience of Members.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, and hoping that his statement will have the desired effect of further increasing the sales of that book, which is much warranted, and while appreciating the fact that, though hon. Members are able to read the book in the Library, many of them and many of their

constituents cannot afford to buy it, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to circulate these telegrams, in addition to the one of 16th January, in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that really is necessary, unless there is a general desire for it in the House.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that these telegrams are not so widely known as the telegram to which he referred at Woodford, and does he not think that the telegram in which he urged the Russians to undertake an offensive, and in which he thanked the Russians, saying, "May all good fortune rest upon your noble venture," and also his remark that the fine deed of the Russians in hastening the great offensive—no doubt with a heavy loss of life—ought to be more widely known? Is the Prime Minister not aware that hundreds of thousands of young Russians lost their lives, and that a few months afterwards he was prepared to build up the German military machine again?

The Prime Minister: Hundreds of thousands of young Britons lost their lives in the first two years of the war when the Russians were in league with Hitler.

Mr. Shinwell: As so much interest has been aroused about these telegrams and other telegrams, and all the rest of it, will not the right hon. Gentleman circulate a copy of the book to each hon. Member?

The Prime Minister: I should like to consider that, especially having regard to the Christmas season. Altogether, I find that from 1st January to the time when I gave up at the end of July, I received or sent 1,250 personal and private telegrams of the most secret character.

Mr. Lewis: May I thank the Prime Minister for his promise of the volume?

Following is the further message:
To: PREMIER STALIN. T. 107/5. 16.1.45.
1. I am most grateful to you for your message, and am extremely glad that Air Marshal Tedder made so favourable an impression upon you.
2. On behalf of His Majesty's Government and from the bottom of my heart I offer you our thanks and congratulations on the immense assault you have launched upon the Eastern front.


3. You now no doubt know the plans of General Eisenhower and to what extent they have been delayed by Rundstedt's spoiling attack. I am sure that fighting along the whole front will be continuous. The British 21st Army Group under Field Marshal Montgomery have to-day begun an attack in the area South of Roermond."

GERMAN ARMAMENTS (SECOND WORLD WAR)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that ex-Captain Cyril Ward, a former senior cypher officer to the Eighth Army, decoded a message from Allied Headquarters in Italy in 1945 ordering all German arms to be stacked, with ammunition; and whether he will obtain from that source the details and text of the telegram that he sent to Field Marshal Montgomery in 1945 concerning the reissue of German arms to the Nazis.

The Prime Minister: It may well be that this was a repetition through a subordinate channel in another command of the purport of some message which I had sent about stacking arms. Both our Commanders, who were field marshals at the time, were receiving or about to receive the surrender of 1 or 2 million of German soldiers with all their equipment, so a lot was going on.

Mr. Lewis: As the Prime Minister started his reply by saying "It may have been," would it not be as well to find out exactly, so that we may know whether or not this was the telegram which, in recent weeks, seems to have been mislaid?

Mr. S. Silverman: At a time when the whole world is anxious to do anything that it may to improve relations between East and West in the conditions which have developed, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be a good thing to give at least as much publicity to those telegrams of his in 1945 which helped that object as to telegrams in 1945 which were injurious to that object, and which may never have been sent at all?

NAZI LEADERS (SECOND WORLD WAR)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister (1) on what authority General Montgomery refrained from arresting Grand Admiral Doenitz,

Colonel-General Jodel, Chief of the German General Staff, General-Admiral von Friedenburg, Professor Speer, and other top-ranking Nazi leaders, until ordered to do so by a mission sent from Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force on 23rd May, 1945;
(2) on what authority General Montgomery permitted Grand Admiral Doenitz, between 4th and 23rd May, 1945, to form and operate from Flensburg, in Schleswig-Holstein, a Government purporting to act under powers conferred by Adolf Hitler before his death;
(3) on what authority General Montgomery permitted Grand Admiral Doenitz and his associates to continue to operate a broadcasting station at Flensburg, in Schleswig-Holstein, between 4th and 22nd May, 1945; and whether the broadcasts, including those in which the German troops and civilians were urged to co-operate with the Western Powers, with a view to regaining the lands they had lost to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, were authorised or censored by the British authorities.

The Prime Minister: Field Marshal Montgomery had no responsibility for any of the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's Questions. They arose, not in connection with the surrender of the German forces in the North-West to Field Marshal Montgomery on 4th May, but in connection with the general surrender of all the remaining forces, which was negotiated immediately afterwards by General Eisenhower and signed on 7th May. It is clear that General Doenitz was left at liberty for a time in order that he might complete the arrangements for the surrender of the forces under his command, He and his associates were taken into custody at a moment which suited the convenience of the Western Armies and their Russian Allies, who were consulted beforehand.
I should be glad to convey any apology to Field Marshal Montgomery which the hon. Member may wish to offer.

Mr. Warbey: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether it is not a fact that all these events took place within the area of Field Marshal Montgomery's command, namely, in Schleswig-Holstein; and, secondly, whether it is not a fact that a great deal of concern was expressed by other Allied circles, including the Russians and the Americans,


regarding all that was going on in that area and the use to which Nazi leaders were being put? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was difficult for Montgomery—[HON. Members: "Field Marshal Montgomery."]—to arrest those Nazi leaders who were on the list of Allied war criminals when other Nazi leaders on other war fronts had been arrested? Is it not a fact that General Eisenhower had to overrule both Field Marshal Montgomery and the Prime Minister, and send a mission from S.H.A.E.F. to clear up the whole mob?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member seems to have enough material to put another three Questions on the Paper.

Mr. Assheton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the country is heartily sick of these mischief-making Questions?

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE (INVITATIONS)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to invite the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to attend the Commonwealth Conference, invitations will also be sent to the Prime Ministers of Malta, Nigeria, the Gold Coast and other Territories which, while not fully independent, have been granted a substantial measure of self-government.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. These meetings are essentially meetings of the Prime Ministers of the member countries. Much of their special character would be lost if the circle of those invited were to be prematurely or unduly widened. There are long-established reasons for the invitation which, after consultation with the other Prime Ministers, I have sent to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to join the Commonwealth meeting.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister aware that by distinguishing, by picking out, one particular country and inviting it to the Conference of Dominion Premiers, he is creating a very unfavourable impression among the other parts of the Commonwealth? Will he reconsider this matter, because both economics and

defence are likely to be discussed at this Conference, matters which are of interest to other parts of the Commonwealth as well as the Rhodesias?

The Prime Minister: Sir Godfrey Huggins has been invited here for quite a considerable number of years. His personal qualities and position have to be considered, as well as the fact that he is a very eminent figure in our Imperial structure. They have been rightly considered, as have the precedents in regard to him, as well as the question of the Territory which he represents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the Territories referred to in my right hon. Friend's Question have now reached the constitutional stage which Southern Rhodesia had reached when her Prime Minister was invited to this Conference? Will the Prime Minister not consider the effect of this, since to refuse to invite the Prime Ministers of Malta, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, and other Territories which occupy the same position—not Dominion status—in Africa may be regarded as discriminating against them?

The Prime Minister: All these matters have been the subject of prolonged and careful consideration, and they will continue to be under perpetual study.

Mr. Griffiths: Cannot this matter be reconsidered in consultation with the other Governments? May I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that his reply will have a very unfortunate effect upon the people concerned?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a topic which will no doubt be discussed among the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth when they meet. The general question of the numbers who should be invited may well be considered.

ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS (WORLD RADIATION)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what recent revisions have been made by his scientific advisers on the number of atomic explosions that can be tolerated before there is any permanent increase in world radiation, with the consequent danger to the health of the people.

The Prime Minister: I am advised that no revisions have been made by our expert authorities which require any new statement by me.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a speech made last week by Professor Haddow, who said that the danger consequent upon the production of the hydrogen bomb had increased enormously, and who called for some international prohibition of further experiments? Would the Prime Minister agree with that, and make further strenuous efforts in that direction?

The Prime Minister: My attention was called to the reported speech of Professor Haddow. I have not in any way concealed the fact that revisions are constantly taking place. When they reach the point where they require me to make a further statement is a matter of which I must be the judge.

FIELD MARSHAL MONTGOMERY (MILITARY DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister if he will ascertain what documents are still held by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery in contravention of the War Cabinet instruction that documents of an extremely secret nature should be destroyed immediately after they had been orally imparted.

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be somewhat muddled about this. A limited class of urgent secret messages sent to commanders at the Front, after being made effective, were by rule destroyed lest they should in the hazards of war fall into enemy hands. Copies were, however, of course preserved at home. It is hardly for me to say what official documents Field Marshal Montgomery was allowed to retain in his personal custody when he relinquished his appointments in Germany or later as C.I.G.S., since at both those times the party opposite was in office.

Mr. Wigg: I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister for describing me as being muddled. If I am muddled, what about himself? The House will appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman

is doing his best to clamber out of the muddle, but he has not succeeded yet. Will he be good enough to tell us if Field Marshal Montgomery had no messages and the Prime Minister has no record of what messages he had kept, why the right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram to Field Marshal Montgomery in America to see whether he had had the telegram which the Prime Minister has subsequently discovered he did not send?

The Prime Minister: I have done everything in my power to produce or discover the alleged incriminating telegram. I should be very glad if I could find it. I will continue to do my best. The only fault I can see that Field Marshal Montgomery has committed has been to aid me in any way he can in clearing up this matter. He has been unable to do so.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, and of the fact that he has not got out of the muddle, may I suggest that, next time he gets a Question on this matter, he consults me, and I will help him to draft his answer.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister whether Field Marshal Lord Montgomery will be charged under Sections 40 and 41 of the Army Act, in that he, by retaining possession of military documents which he has not been authorised to retain, has contravened the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1911.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wigg: Can the House now take it that there is one code of discipline for Field Marshals and another for other ranks? If so, is that not one of the reasons why the Government's recruiting campaign has completely collapsed?

Brigadier Medlicott: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not clear that the object of these Questions is not to defend the interests of Britain, or even to attack Field Marshal Montgomery, but to secure cheap publicity for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to add in any way to my perfectly clear answer of a negative character which I have already given. I may, however, say that there are a great number of people


in this country who think that this attempt to work up feeling against Field Marshal Montgomery is very mean.

OFFICIAL TELEGRAMS (SECOND WORLD WAR)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what categories of official telegrams sent by him during the war to military, air and naval commanders have been made available to the official historian of the war.

The Prime Minister: None of the telegrams available in our London records have been withheld from the official historians.

Mr. Hughes: Has not the right hon. Gentleman previously told the House that the first business of a historian is to check his quotations? How is this unfortunate historian to check his quotations if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find the telegram?

The Prime Minister: It is not only the business of historians to verify their quotations but, as I know to my cost, of quite ordinary people.

Mr. Shinwell: When the Prime Minister contemplates another visit to his constituency of Woodford, will he consult some hon. Members on this side of the House about what he should say?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps they could explain to me the reasons by which they were guided in choosing which documents Field Marshal Montgomery should be allowed to take away with him?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. As Question No. 56 affects the life and liberty of an Englishman, could permission be given for it to be answered now?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have had no request for that Question to be answered after the time for Questions. I am bound by the Standing Order as to time.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have answered the point of order. The hon. Member will get a written reply to his Question, and if he requires further information he

must put down a further Question. That is the rule for all Members of the House, including the hon. Member.

MR. PETER ARTHUR DAVID BAKER

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The Return moved for by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary relating to the case of Mr. Peter Baker will be available in the Vote Office about 4 o'clock today. I give notice that at the beginning of business on Thursday a Motion will be proposed for his expulsion from membership of this House.

BILLS PRESENTED

ARMY

Bill to make provision with respect to the Army, presented by Mr. Head, supported by Mr. Harold Macmillan, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. George Ward, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

AIR FORCE

Bill to make provision with respect to the Air Force, presented by Mr. George Ward, supported by Mr. Harold Macmillan, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. Head, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS)

Bill to continue the Army and Air Force Acts until the appointed day, and to make, with respect to the replacement thereof by new provisions, certain transitional provisions and savings and amendments of other enactments relating to those Acts or otherwise to the armed forces of the Crown; to make permanent certain provisions contained in the said Acts; and to repeal certain enactments relating to the armed forces of the Crown which are rendered unnecessary by the expiry of those Acts or are otherwise obsolete, presented by Mr. Head; supported by Mr. Harold Macmillan, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. George Ward, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS)

Bill to increase the limit imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-six of the Transport Act, 1953, on the amount outstanding in respect of borrowings of the British Transport Commission, presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, supported by Mr. Henry Brooke and Mr. Molson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). —[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 13th December.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

First Schedule agreed to.

3.34 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule. —(AMENDMENTS OF BENEFIT PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Mr. William Blyton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, column 4, to leave out "sixty-seven shillings and sixpence" and insert "seventy shillings."
There are a number of Amendments dealing with this point, Sir Charles. Is it your wish that they should be taken together?

The Chairman: Yes. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take together both the Amendments in page 23 of the Notice Paper, all those on the following page, and the first three in page 25. They all deal with the same sort of point.

Mr. Blyton: This Amendment seeks to increase the 100 per cent. disablement pension by 2s. 6d., and to give pro rata increases to partial cases, as defined in the Schedule. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side regard this Bill as an interim Measure. We are eagerly awaiting the report on the quinquennial review, and shall then seek solutions to the many difficulties that have arisen in connection with benefits since the 1946 Act was passed. We believe that the whole range of injury benefits must be reviewed in the future, and this Amendment, and those which are being taken with it, must not be regarded as in any way committing us in regard to any future action we may wish to take.
We have put down the Amendment because the injury benefits have not gone up in the same proportion above the 1946 level as the basic National Insurance benefits. Speaking in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said:
'To sum up, the Bill restores the value of insurance and industrial injuries benefits and pensions to the level that we all intended they should command when we settled what they should be in the two great Acts of 1946."—

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask for your help, Sir Charles? My hon. Friend is speaking under very great difficulty. There is a good deal of noise in the Committee. Surely he is entitled to a little more order.

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will be quieter.

Mr. Blyton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It seems that hon. Members opposite are not concerned about the benefits—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. It is most unruly to talk when hon. Members are making speeches. If the hon. Gentlemen cannot stop talking, I hope they will leave the Chamber.

Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of order. Is it not permitted to consult one's fellow Members about the speech that is being made?

The Chairman: When an hon. Member is making a speech he should be given a fair hearing. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) was being obstructed. I saw that he was being obstructed, and that it was being done intentionally. It is not good enough.

Sir T. Moore: Sir T. Moorerose—

The Chairman: There is nothing more to be said. I saw what was going on, and it must be stopped.

Mr. Blyton: As I have been trying to explain, we do not regard this Bill as putting an end to the question of benefits. We intend, when we have the quinquennial report before us, to review the whole range of benefits so far as this particular Act is concerned.
The object of this Amendment is to increase the benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, in the same proportion above the 1946 level as the National Insurance Act benefits are being increased. On Second Reading the Minister said:
To sum up, the Bill restores the value of insurance and industrial injuries benefits and pensions to the level that we all intended they should command when we settled what they should be in the two great Acts of 1946. Not only does the Bill do that, hut it goes much further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 981.]
It is because we want the Minister to carry out what he there said that we have

put down this Amendment. To give a totally disabled man the same proportionate increase would require paying him 69s. 4d., but we have rounded off that figure to 70s. That means that we are seeking to increase the 100 per cent. disablement pension under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act by 2s. 6d.
We are asking that the 90 per cent. disabled man should have 2s. 3d. For the 80 per cent. disabled man we are seeking an advance of 2s.; for the 70 per cent. disabled man we seek 1s. 9d.; for the 60 per cent. disabled man is. 6d.; for the 50 per cent. disabled man 1s. 3d.; 40 per cent. 1s.; 30 per cent. 9d.; and 20 per cent. 6d. We believe that these amounts, which we have worked out on the basis I have indicated, will give to the injured workmen the same increased benefits above the 1946 level as those under the National Insurance Act.
We also propose to alter the rates for injured people between 17 and 18 years of age to 52s. 6d. instead of 50s. 8d., which is an increase of 1s. 10d. a week on the 100 per cent. disability. For the boy or girl under 17 years of age we ask for an increase from 33s. 9d. to 35s., which would be a 1s. 3d. a week increase for the 100 per cent. disability. These are modest increases, their purpose being to provide the proportion which I have already indicated.
We are informed by the Actuary that the increased contributions plus the Exchequer grant will bring in £6½ million in 1955–56 and £7,800,000 in 1956–57. The estimated expenditure is £5½ million for 1955–56, and in the next year it is estimated at £7 million. Therefore, we find that in the first year the Fund will have £1 million over and above the benefits which will be paid, and in the second year £800,000 over and above that which has to be paid.
The Minister has informed us that there is now £109 million in the Fund. Therefore, in the light of these figures, and as the Minister said on Second Reading that these benefits should be increased, we ask today that they shall be increased in the same proportion as National Insurance benefits based on the 1946 level.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has said. These Amendments


refer to all the benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, except one, and that is the special hardship allowance which is the subject of a separate Amendment which will be discussed later.
The point, which is very simple, is this. The proposed increase in all these benefits, with the exception which I have mentioned, is not in the same ratio as the proposed increase in the basic benefits under the National Insurance Act. As we have been told both in this debate and on Second Reading, when the ld. has been added, the increase in industrial injuries benefits will be less than what the 1d. produces to the extent of at least £800,000 in a year. We feel that the beneficiaries under the Industrial Injuries Act should be treated no less favourably than the beneficiaries under the National Insurance Act. A very small but important point is embodied in these Amendments, and I hope that the Minister, at any rate for once, will be able to give us a favourable reply.

3.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene briefly now. I realise how strongly the Committee always feels about any sort of disability, and I think that this Amendment has been moved in a very reasonable way. I am sure all hon. Members will realise that these industrial injuries benefits are all part of a large and balanced scheme, and show a great increase in the benefits of almost every class of pension, not only industrial injuries pensions but National Insurance pensions and, of course, war disability pensions, too. They are all closely allied to one another.
As the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said, the basis of his disagreement with the Government on the rate of these pensions is that he thinks the increase in industrial injuries benefits is not proportionately as great as those which have been given on the National Insurance side. I will admit that on the National Insurance side my right hon. Friend did go rather further than a direct comparison with 1946 values, whereas on the industrial injuries side the 67s. 6d. 100 per cent. rate is an exact 50 per cent.

increase over 1946 pension values. Therefore, we claim that my right hon. Friend has fulfilled his promise to increase the industrial injuries pensions by that amount, although, as I say, on the National Insurance side he has rounded the figure off and has actually given a little bit more.
National Insurance benefits are, of course, primarily based on subsistence levels, whereas the injury benefits are based on compensation for injury received. Moreover, in the case of industrial injuries disablement pensions, the majority of pensioners are in employment, or, if they are not, they are eligible for sickness or unemployment benefit. If they are seriously disabled and in need of constant attendance, for instance, they get greatly increased supplementary benefits.
I should like to give, merely for the purpose of comparison between the two rates before these increases and after, the case of a badly disabled man who needs constant attendance and has a wife and two children. He will get the new basic rate of 67s. 6d., which is an increase of 12s. 6d. He will get the unemployability supplement of 40s. which has gone up by 7s. 6d., and constant attendance allowance, if he gets the full scale, of 60s., which has gone up 10s.
Then there is the wife's allowance of 25s., which is up 3s. 6d. The two children's allowances are up 2s., and he gets the family allowance which is exactly the same for the second child of 8s. That makes a total of £10 15s. 6d., which is an increase of 35s. 6d. on the old rates. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a very substantial increase.

Mr. B. Taylor: Although the hon. Gentleman's figures are substantially correct, I would point out that he is quoting the extreme case. That is not the general run of cases.

Brigadier Smyth: I am comparing like with like—an extreme case before the increases with an extreme case after the increases. That is a fair comparison. One could compare them all down the ladder at every equivalent scale, but I have compared like with like.
We must also remember that the disabled pensioners becoming eligible for retirement pensions will benefit, too, by the increase in the retirement pensions.


As hon. Members know, these industrial injury benefits and pensions are very closely allied with the war disability pension. In fact, the rates are substantially the same, and I know that the increased rates of war disability pension have been extremely well received by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), President of the British Legion. Hon. Members will recall that he said they were the best in our history.
Since my right hon. Friend announced the new rates, I have talked to a number of badly disabled war disability pensioners. They are perhaps less inhibited in these matters than Members of Parliament, and they have been wholehearted in their praise and gratitude. I am sure that the same applies to the industrially injured.
In May, 1952, when we were discussing the last increases which we made, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), whose opinions we always treat with great respect, moved that instead of our 10s. increase from 45s. to 55s. for the 100 per cent. disabled, the rates should be increased to 60s. He made that plea entirely on a cost-of-living basis, urging that the figure should be raised to the cost-of-living level at the time. We could not then accept his proposal but, even taking his figure of 60s. in 1952, I maintain that the increase which we have now made to 67s. 6d. more than covers the rise in the cost of living between May, 1952, and the present time. On that basis we need have raised the 100 per cent. basic rate only to 64s.
I do not want to go at all deeply into the question of cost because my right hon. Friend yesterday explained in considerable detail the whole basis of the Industrial Injuries Fund and underlined the essential importance of gradually building up the reserve in the Fund. Although, as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said, at the moment there is £109 million in the Fund, the actuarial view is that a sum well over £300 million is required in the Fund before it can become self-supporting, as we all know it is intended to be.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister yesterday referred to a figure of £300 million. I am not disputing that figure, but what is important for the Committee—and this

illustrates our difficulty on the whole Bill—is that we should have a report on it. The Minister has asked the Actuary to make this computation, and surely we ought to have a report on the Actuary's quinquennial review in which this figure is announced. At the moment all we have is the Minister's view of what the Actuary says.

Brigadier Smyth: My right hon. Friend will give a figure. He has been informed that well over £300 million would be required before the Fund became self-supporting and, as he explained yesterday, there is no doubt—

Mr. Griffiths: This is something which the Minister mentioned—that each year an additional number of life disablement pensioners are added to the Fund, so that each year we are building up an additional burden to pay these life benefits. But the Fund is not now insolvent. The Fund contains £109 million. It is simply that when the scheme has completely matured and we reach the peak of the number of those annually coming on to the Fund, then £300 million will be required. It is important that no impression should be given that the Fund is at present insolvent.

Brigadier Smyth: I hope I did not give that impression. I certainly did not mean to give it. But the amount transferred to the reserve of the Fund has been decreasing over the last two or three years, and we regard that as important.
I do not want to detain the Committee any longer on this point, except to say that this is part of a big and balanced scheme wherein various different rates of industrial injuries, National Insurance and war pensions are all very closely related. My right hon. Friend has fulfilled his promise in increasing the industrial injury benefits by 50 per cent. up to the 1946 values. For the reasons which I have given, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Finch: Would the Minister deal with the principal point, which is that the same proportionate increase has not been granted in the case of industrial injury as has been granted in the case of National Insurance? Why is there this difference in the proportion of the increase?

Brigadier Smyth: I thought I explained that at the beginning. I said that these increases in industrial injury benefits carry out my right hon. Friend's promise to put the values of the benefits back to their 1946 value. In the case of National Insurance, my right hon. Friend has gone a little above that in what he called rounding off the benefits. I explained that we did not think that was necessarily a vital point. He has fulfilled his promise over the industrial injuries. In the other cases he has gone a little above the actuarial figure. In addition, in many cases the disablement pensioner will also receive the increased National Insurance benefits.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sorry that Mr. Scrooge, who used to sit on the benches opposite, is no longer with us, for it would have gladdened his heart to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.
The question is very simple. Certain increases have been made in the general run of pensions and benefits under the National Insurance Act. There are certain special benefits and pensions, called benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act, and there are also special cases connected with war pensioners. As for the last special cases, I would simply say that the short answer is that if we raise the others, as we have done, why not raise these, too? But we are not discussing that now.
What we are discussing at the moment is a special class of people who are suffering from industrial injuries. The promise was made to raise pensions and benefits. It was one promise, and it related both to the National Insurance Act benefits and also to the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act. It puzzles me very much to know why the promise is discharged in one way as regards the National Insurance Act and in another, and smaller way, apparently, under the Industrial Injuries Act.
The real point is quite short and simple. This is, in the result, discrimination against people who suffer from industrial injuries. What is the reason for it? I have heard all sorts of ingenious, roundabout excuses, if I may say so with respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think that I have heard any single answer to what is, after all, a very simple question. I did not hear

what I expected to hear—how much all this would cost. What are we dealing with? We are dealing with an increase of 2s. 6d. over 67s. 6d. in the full benefit cases and corresponding increases in the others.

Brigadier Smyth: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman to give him that information? The cost will be £1,400,000, plus, of course, the extra on war pensions, which will be another £1,700,000.

Mr. Mitchison: Three million pounds. I forget for the moment how much it was that caused Mr. Scrooge some difficulty, but surely the parallel gets even closer. If there was some good reason for this discrimination and if we had heard any real justification for it, that would be a different matter; but there has been none. We are talking now apparently, including the war pensions cases which are not really the subject of the discussion today, about £3 million at the most. Surely the Government might meet these people that far.
After all, we talk about the prosperity of the country, increasing production, the urgent need for more coal—all kinds of industrial questions, not to mention quite a number of industrial disputes at the moment. Surely this is the last moment we wish to say that we cannot afford to treat people who suffer from industrial injuries to a proportionate increase as against those who suffer in the ordinary way and come under the National Insurance provisions. What is the reason for it? None has been given.
We were told that it was a "big and balanced scheme." That is exactly what it is not. It may be big but, to this comparatively small extent, it is not balanced but unbalanced, and I see no reason whatever for that. I would have thought that, much though the Government might want to get this Bill through without any amendment at all, they ought on this occasion to recognise that they are going against the feelings of the country as a whole, the feelings of the people who make the wealth of the country and who suffer injuries by so doing, and whose services to the country have never been more needed than at this moment; and that they might for that reason make what is a comparatively small, but logical, and, I may add, only a fair increase.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) use the term "Scrooge" in association with my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench. Surely we should recall that, in the lifetime of the present Parliament, they have been responsible for many Measures which have ameliorated the conditions of those who have been affected by industrial injuries.
Hon. Members on this side—and, no doubt, hon. Members opposite—can recall, among other things, that benefits were extended not only to those totally disabled in industry but to some of those partly disabled in industry, and who, in some cases, had left those industries in which they were formerly engaged. It is always more pleasing for back benchers on this side to support increases than to oppose them.
But we have to accept that my right hon. Friend has gone fully into this question, and I should have thought that he would have derived considerable satisfaction from the words of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). The hon. Member said on two or throe occasions, "These are very modest demands," and I should have thought that was an indication that the increases provided in this Bill were by no means unsatisfactory.

Mr. Blyton: They cannot be satisfactory, if we are moving Amendments to them.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the Opposition would not be so failing in their duty as not to call for very much larger increases if the increases proposed by the Bill were grossly inadequate.

Mr. Blyton: We regard this as a temporary Measure, and we shall have much more to say on the report of the quinquennial review, which deals with the whole range of pensions.

Mr. Gower: That may be so, but I am sure that the Opposition would not be so failing in their duty as not, on this occasion, to put forward Amendments calling for considerable increases, if they thought that the increases in the present Bill were grossly inadequate. I am sure that they would put down an Amendment calling for another 10s. or about 10s.

rather than 2s. 6d. or 1s. 6d., as the case may be. When we consider that many of these increases are for sums like 12s. 6d., it is surprising that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) should have associated my right hon. Friend and his colleague with Scrooge.

Mr. Victor Collins: I would suggest to the hon. Member that if we are putting our demands to Scrooge, it is a waste of time to put them too high.

Mr. Gower: Most of us on this side, I think, feel that there is a case for going a little further with the retirement pension than with any other case, because my experience is that a person who is living on a retirement pension is generally dependent on that pension, and that alone. It is true that in some cases the retirement pensioner can rely on National Assistance, but the so-called marginal retirement pensioners, who have very slender means indeed but sufficient to bar them from National Assistance, generally have to live on their retirement pensions.
We would, of course, have liked to see other increased benefits in this and other cases, but we submit that the benefits under this Bill can properly be described as the "best yet," not only in the case of war pensions but in the case of industrial and retirement pensions. This is a considerable Measure; it is a good Measure, and one which deserves the support of the Committee.

Mr. Tom Brown: I indicated in my remarks on Second Reading that I see within this Bill the seeds of industrial discontent. That discontent may not have reached the ears of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but I can assure him that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the mining industry about the attitude of the Government on this question. It will reveal itself with greater force as days go by.
I would remind the Minister that men in the mining industry who have contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund for years have conceded, and continue to concede, their Saturday holiday. They are working a voluntary shift. In what other industries are men making such a sacrifice as they make in the mining industry, in the production of the


coal which is so essential? [An HON. MEMBER: "The steel industry."] Yes, and in the steel industry. Yesterday, we spent a few hours in struggling to save 1d. on contributions and today we are struggling to secure a 2s. 6d. increase in benefit rates.
I may be wrong, but I look on this as a great human question. We are dealing with men whose chances in life have been more or less destroyed. They are cripples, unable to work, and they have been crippled in industries in which they have been giving of their best to the nation. We have talked about increased productivity. The newspapers of yesterday and the day before said a lot about the remarkable increase.
Who are responsible for that increase? They are not the Cabinet and not the Minister—we do not expect them to be. When men respond so magnificently, as they have responded in industry in the past few years, we are entitled to put forward the argument that the men responsible for increased productivity, if overtaken by accident, should be protected by the nation and by this House from a low standard of living.
An hon. Member opposite has said that the increases were the best in history. Why should they not be the best? Should they be the worst? The standard of living has been rising since 1945. Why should the nation not be in a position to give our industrial workers the best, particularly when they are overtaken by accidents? The Parliamentary Secretary cited the case of a man suffering from 100 per cent. incapacity and said he would get 67s. 6d. Then he mentioned hardship allowance, unemployability allowance, wife's allowance and children's allowance and said that eventually a man who was totally incapacitated as a result of an accident would receive the magnificent sum of £10 5s. 6d. But, when he met with the accident that man might have been receiving £12 or £14 a week.

Brigadier Smyth: Brigadier Smythrose—

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Brown: Wait a moment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted the best case for his purpose. I wonder whether he would have applied the same analysis to those lower in the scale and have shown how it worked then.

I think it manifestly unfair that spokesmen for the Government should try to tell the Committee and the nation that the Government are being very generous in these scales, because they are not. They have talked about balanced scales and benefits, but they are as unbalanced as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. There is no balance in them at all.
I know that I should be out of order in discussing old-age pensions now, but these scales fall far short of the advance in old-age pensions. Surely we are entitled to ask that our injured workmen should get the same advance, if not more, as the old-age pensioners. No Government, never mind a Tory Government, have ever faced the real obligations they have to injured workmen. I challenge anyone to say that the Government have faced their obligations to injured workmen. If we began to compare rates of benefit and compensation paid in some spheres of life we would find that we are falling far short of those when dealing with injured workmen. Why should the Government be so parsimonious in their attempt to meet the case of injured workmen?
After all, a man goes into industry for the purpose of maintaining himself and his family, but he goes for something more. He goes into industry to help the nation in the vocation to which he is called by producing the goods so essential to the economic life of his country. When we consider what he should pay in rates of contribution and what he should receive as compensation, or industrial injury benefit, we always come down to the lowest possible level. We should take a realistic view of what subsistence means. The Government will have to face that question. It was all right for them when workers were satisfied with many things which were obnoxious, but the process of evolution has caused people to look upon their standard of life in a proper way, in an honest and just way.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that these rates were the best ever. It should be remembered that the Government are not altogether paying for these benefits, but the men themselves are paying to help their injured comrades. If we could take the Fund of £109 million which has accumulated over a few years and put it in the hands of sensible men in the industrial world they would make


a better job of it than the Government have done. The surplus of £109 million has accumulated as a result of payments into the Fund by men in industry, but now we have to struggle to secure an extra 2s. 6d. for them. That is not good enough and I hope that the Government will give way on this Amendment.
Men who are hale and hearty and go through their industrial life without an accident are fortunate, but what about the unfortunate man who may be accident-prone? If the Minister would go to some of our mining villages and towns, he would see the type of man that appeals to almost everybody, irrespective of politics—the permanently crippled man. There are in my constituency several men who are 100 per cent. incapacitated. They are to get the 100 per cent. rate of 67s. 6d. Does this compensate them for the loss they have sustained? Does it compensate them in the realms of social, economic or domestic life, many of them denied the ordinary pleasures which come to young men? And yet the Government say, "We are going to pay you 67s. 6d." To me, as a very ordinary man, it is scandalous.
If the Government intend to fight us on this question of 2s. 6d., they will bring upon themselves more discontent than they have ever experienced before.

Mr. Mitchison: It will cost them much more than £3 million.

Mr. Brown: This is too vast and far-reaching a problem for the Government to niggle about the Amendment, which would give 2s. 6d. more to a man who is paralysed from the waist downwards, or to a man who has lost both arms.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the 67s. 6d. was based as nearly as possible upon the Royal Warrant. Well, I say that the Royal Warrant is wrong for the men with whom it has to deal. It was never generous enough, and now we are struggling to get the 2s. 6d. I appeal to the Government to recognise the force of the Amendment and to realise that what we are asking for is something which is a little more equitable in the direction that we want to go.
The Minister will say, "Yes, but we must wait until we get the Actuary's report. This is only an interim Measure." But it must be remembered that this interim Measure, as I pointed out during

Second Reading, must last for five years. Is this extra penalty to be inflicted upon totally incapacitated workmen for five years? That would be wrong, unjust and dishonest, because these men are not asking for money from the Treasury, or only a small fraction of it. They are asking for it from the Fund to which they have paid, and from the Fund to which men in the pits and other industries are paying. Surely we are entitled to get from that Fund the things which we think are fair and just to the injured workman. I am convinced that the Government are neither right nor just in resisting this modest Amendment.

Mr. George Brown: I do not rise to close the debate from this side of the Committee; I think it should continue unless the Minister is able to appreciate what has been said. But while the debate continues, I want to put a small but pertinent point to the right hon. Gentleman. He will then have time to think it over before he replies to my hon. Friends.
Yesterday, the Minister had his way about increasing the contribution by the insured workman to the tune of £1 million or thereabouts per year more than the cost of the new benefits to the insured workman in a year justified. As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary just now, the cost of accepting this Amendment for the insured workman would be a little over £1 million a year.
Assuming, therefore, the most pessimistic basis of the Actuary's report and the most optimistic basis of the Minister's estimate of cost, there is not very much difference between the cost of allowing the Amendment, so far as it affects the insured workman, and the accretion to the Fund of contributions that are not committed already. The Minister could, in fact, do this for the insured workman almost entirely out of the increased contribution.
If the Minister is taking £1 million a year from the insured workman more than the increased benefits will take up, and if the cost of applying the Amendment, which would bring insured workmen into line with everybody else, is hardly any more than £1 million, why should the Minister not do what we ask? The right hon. Gentleman had his way yesterday; I thought he ought not to have put the 1d. on, and I said so very


strongly. But, having got the money, why should the Minister not pay out by putting these men in the same position as everybody else?
The Minister is, in fact, doing two things. He is taking more from the insured man than the insured man need pay, and he is paying out less to the insured workman than the insured workman is entitled to have. Ministers dig in their heels on matters of principle—I have done it myself—but is there any principle in this? I tried this morning to defend the scheme at a meeting of trade unionists, and I did my very best, but I got into great difficulties. Why make the difficulties worse? Why take more from the men than is necessary and then, next day, refuse to give the men the same as is being given to other people?
My hon. and right hon. Friends will develop their many arguments. I limit myself to that one simple point. I ask the Minister, since by his Amendment yesterday he will get the money out of the insured men and employers, why he will not now agree to put these men on the same basis as everybody else, because all that is necessary is to pay out the money which the right hon. Gentleman admitted yesterday he was getting more than the proposed benefits justified.

Mr. Ronald Williams: May I put to the Minister a point which so far has not been put and with which, I am sure, hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will agree? When one is considering National Insurance benefits, on the one hand, and industrial injury benefits, on the other hand, there must be a substantial differentiation in favour of industrial injuries benefits. However controversial might be the arguments which lead to that conclusion, that conclusion was arrived at many years ago.
To put it in short compass, I think one could fairly say that differentiation of risk justifies differentiation of rate. Therefore, if the Minister were considering a formula or principle upon which he would give benefits or increased benefits, and if he were to differentiate, his margin of differentiation should be greater on the side of the industrial injuries part of his calculation than on the National Insurance side.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a promise and a statement in relation to these benefits which, quite clearly, could be read to indicate that he is adopting the same principle in respect of both sides of the Scheme. Today, it has been clearly indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary that that is not the case and that the Minister has added more to National Insurance than to the industrial injuries side. In other words, he is holding to the principle upon which the difference between the two Statutes rests.
4.30 p.m.
Were he doing that for the sake of some large principle which he was prepared to justify, a matter involving confidence in the Government, or something of that sort, one could, perhaps, follow his point of view; but he is doing it for the sake of 30d. per week, 30d. per week for men who are badly crippled. It is not even a question of our saying that this flat rate of 2s. 6d. should run right through the list. We say only that it should be added to meet a special need. To the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who has had such vast experience in this field, I add the example of a man bedridden with pneumoconiosis, or a person in whom massive fibrositis has proceeded to such a degree that there is no hope for him. We ask for an extra 30d. for him on the basis of the principle laid down by the Minister's Bill, not on the basis of any special argument that we submit from this side of the Committee.
When the Minister argued the degree of increase which he considered would be justified, he said that it might be 30d. more for these men than is provided by these proposals. Why is the Minister going back on that, having said it? Why is he attempting now to say they are getting more than they ever got before? They would be getting more than they ever got before, more than they ever got in the history of industrial injury compensation, if he gave just 1d. increase and left it at that. He can always argue that they are getting more now. There is no merit in that argument unless it is related to the principles on which he bases his argument. On those principles he himself put a case which logically, irresistibly, makes the sum of 30d. more than that proposed in the Schedule a justifiable amount.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. He should pay very serious attention indeed to the fact that he himself has introduced this principle. After all, there is a difference between the attitude of mind of Members on the other side of the Committee in approaching this subject arid the attitude of mind of Members on this side. On the other side of the Committee they are very much more inclined than we are to say, "Look how much you have got. Look at the great advances which have been made. Look how much more generous we are being than our predecessors."

Mr. Blyton: With whose money?

Mr. Williams: On this side of the Committee we say, "How much have we lost in the drive for production? How much have we lost in the risks we have taken by the fact that people have been transformed from being vigorous and so able to participate in the production drive to being bedridden and incurable?" If the Minister is not prepared, on his own argument, to give 30d. more a week to these people, he should, as I said earlier, be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I hope that when the Minister replies to the case for this Amendment he will not make heavy weather about the actuarial basis of the Fund. This is not only a financial transaction. This is elementally a matter of humanity. I hope the Minister has not lost his humane feeling for these men who have been so badly beaten by industrial life.
While we have been discussing this matter I have been remembering the early days of industrial injury compensation. We have been told that this is a generous Bill, that we are dealing very generously with the injured workmen. Having been closely associated with industry since the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, I can assure hon. Members that everything that we have won since 1906 for the injured workmen has been won only by a struggle either in politics or in industry. Never have the employers or the Conservative Party made a concession to our side unless we have put up a struggle or been prepared to make a struggle.

Mr. T. Brown: That is what brought us here.

Mr. Awbery: Yes, those are the things that brought this party into Parliament. There was a time when, if a man went to work early in the morning, had an accident and was killed by 11 o'clock, half a day's pay was deducted from his pay packet because he ceased work before noon.

Mr. Jack Jones: True.

Mr. Awbery: We progressed until maximum compensation was half wages, 30s., which was worth while when compared with earlier arrangements. Things are better than they were compared with 1906, and are better than they were in pre-war days, but they are still not satisfactory, and we want to move on. I hope the Minister will not stop as making progress.
Until 1946 the industrial worker made no contribution whatever. That responsibility was entirely in the hands of the employer. If a man sustained an accident he was passed over to an insurance society. The employer made the total contribution for that liability. In 1946 the workman was called upon to bear 50 per cent. of that responsibility. No longer is the responsibility 100 per cent. on the employer. It is shared between the employer and the workman, 50 per cent. each, and we are increasing the employer's share now. He is to pay 6d. and the workman 5d.
The Minister should not consider too much the financial side of the matter. He has already built up a Fund of £109 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) pointed out that at least half of that £109 million has been contributed by the workers. Now the Minister wants to increase the worker's contribution by 1d. to get a £300 million surplus. Last weekend, travelling by train from here, I entered a compartment in which was a man suffering from pneumoconiosis. He was coughing and could hardly breathe during the whole of the journey. That is the sort of man we have to consider.
Let human feeling rise above the financial aspect. If the Minister looks at the matter from the humane point of view I am sure his heart will tell him he must provide for these men who have been broken in industry and who are suffering, and I am confident that he will then give the 2s. 6d. for which we ask.

Mr. Jack Jones: I make no apology for rising for the first time in our debates on this Bill to say a few words. I do not want to get emotional about the victim of pneumoconiosis or the man who is paralysed from the waist downwards or to stress the sufferings of those about whom the Committee knows only too well. I must say to the Government, however, that I am surprised that they, as business people, cannot see the force of our arguments.
As everybody in the Committee knows by now, or ought to know, I come from the steel industry, an industry which is second to none in the country. My hon. Friend the Member of Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked who else but the miners were working on Saturday mornings. Our men do. They work 21 shifts, that is, 168 hours per week, and they cannot work more. These men are watching what the Government are doing by means of the Bill. They have been called upon to increase production and they have done so week by week, month by month and year by year. They have got on with it without making a song and dance about it.
I ask the Government to buy for themselves 2s. 6d. per week worth of good will. We are not asking the Minister or the Government to pay something out of their own pockets. What if we were? What if it were demanded from taxation? Taxation is taken out of goods and services and there are no goods or services that cannot be traced back in their basic origin to iron and steel and coal. All we ask is that the Government should pass to those who need it most some of the contributions made possible by those men who are still at work. We are asking the Government to transfer 2s. 6d. extra per week contributed to by the fit to those who are less fortunate.
The Government should look at this not as an emotional matter, but as a business proposition. They could even look at it as a political, business manoeuvre. They will fail in their own interests if they do not accept the Amendment. I was never satisfied that my own Government gave injured men all that they were entitled to receive. We probably said that we gave what the country could afford. I was never happy about that. I am the first to admit that it is wrong for the present Parliament to think that what the

Labour Government did was always right. Possibly, we made many mistakes. If so, it is the job of the present Government to put right what we left undone.
It is our job in Parliament to look at the position as we find it, to look at the national wealth and do our best with it. It is the Christian, decent thing to do, but it is no good talking about Christmas or Scrooge. These men have to live in July and August and all the year round. If the Minister is as shrewd a businessman as I believe he is, he will readily see that to gain the good will of the men who do not need this 2s. 6d. extra he should give it to those who do.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Collins: I am astonished at the attitude of the Government towards this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has referred to it as a business proposition, and I am really surprised that the viewpoint of an employer has not been put from the other side of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite, as employers, must know what industrial injuries mean to their work-people. I am shocked that no hon. Member opposite has had the decency or the courage to say that a great deal ought to be done. We have had only one speech from back benchers opposite. That was from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who, I am sorry to say, is not now in his place.
I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but it would be fair to sum up his speech as consisting of two points. The first was that the benefits proposed are higher than ever before. That may be perfectly true, but the value of the money is lower than it has ever been in the history of the country. His second point was that the increase for which my hon. Friends were asking was not worth talking about. I entirely agree that that is the case in relation to the need and the injury. What price a pair of lungs? When a miner comes into the mine with head up he is a full man, but after 10 or 15 years' work he is coughing up his lungs, bit by bit, day by day. How much for a pair of lungs? Half-a-crown?
This applies not merely to major industries and major injuries. I am an employer in a small way in a manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, accidents happen. A man may not lose his lungs or become paralysed, but he perhaps loses a finger.


He has been earning £12 to £15 a week and, a married man, he is immediately confronted with the prospect of receiving £3 10s. to £4 a week.
How does the decent employer, and there are plenty, react to that? Speaking from my own experience, his reaction is to feel physically sick and immediately after the accident to inquire whether there was any negligence attributable to the employer. Such inquiries are made not to reduce the man's prospect of receiving what is no more than a miserable allowance, but in the hope that he will receive reasonable monetary compensation. Nothing, of course, can make good the loss of the man's finger. He receives 6 per cent. allowance for that, which comes to about £80 when the finger is healed up and he resumes work.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), in discussing contributions under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, said that the Government were stuffing the 1d. down the workman's throat. The Government are also stuffing the 1d. down the employer's throat. If we are now to pay 26s. a year in contributions for each workman—and everybody will willingly pay that—and in addition we pay separately 10 private insurance companies, we have the right to ask for value for money for our work-people. It has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the Minister has admitted it that under the proposed arrangement we shall not receive value for money. There is a profit being made, and a surplus will accrue to the Government out of these conditions.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave details of what he rightly said was an extreme case when he brought the increment to £10 15s. 6d. That poor, unfortunate individual is for the time being, and probably for a long time, 95 per cent. dead. He must be before he receives £10 15s. 6d. a week, whereas a few weeks or even a few minutes previously he was a bold, upstanding, hearty man, working for £12 or £15. His life is completely mutilated.
I am perfectly well aware of the very high insurance complement of this Scheme, but I revert to my original proposition—which is in agreement with the point which was made by the hon. Member for Barry—that the increase for which we are

now asking in the Amendment is a miserable increase. It is, in fact, very little worth talking about, and we are only talking about it because it is so difficult to persuade the Government to grant even this small increase.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that when these accidents happen it is not only the employee who is affected. The employer is confronted with a situation in which a valuable, skilled man will receive an income which is about one-third of what he would have been receiving if he had not been injured. He was a man valuable to production. There was no negligence on the part of the employer or employer's servants and, therefore, nothing could be got from separate insurance for his benefit. In many cases like that firms pay the man's wages anyway. It comes out of their profits, but in some large corporations and large firms that is not possible. I suggest to the Minister that, pending the further discussions which are to take place, he should accept this Amendment.

Mr. B. Taylor: The speeches to which we have listened during the past half hour are an indication of how my hon. Friends feel upon this particular subject. I should like to tell the Minister, in the first place, that I hope the day is not very far distant when we can have a full-dress debate on the Industrial Injuries Act. It is greatly needed and is very implicit in the many speeches that have been made this afternoon. The sooner we have it the better it will be for all concerned.
I do not marvel at the nature of the speeches that have been made from these benches on a subject of this kind. I share the views of my hon. Friends. We who are connected with mining and have worked in the mining industry—if I may say so, very modestly, I spent 20 years underground myself—feel very keenly and strongly on this particular subject of industrial injury and disease. During my Second Reading speech I said that of the 750,000 reportable accidents during any year, two-thirds came from the mining industry. That is a collossal toll upon the men who are producing the coal that the country needs.
Every weekend I have a very unpleasant experience. Without exception, when I pick up the local newspaper I find a report of a fatality or an accident


during the week in the heavy mining industrial area from which I come. It is because of such circumstances as that, and knowing the men as we do, that on this particular subject we feel so very strongly and passionately.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) made what I thought was a very astounding statement. I am sorry he is not in his place, because it seems to fall to my lot lately to challenge many of the things the hon. Member for Barry says. One of the many things he said this afternoon was that the benefits proposed in the Bill are the best ever. But that is not really the position. The Minister himself, on Second Reading, admitted that the proposed benefits for all practical purposes restored the 1946 position, so that in. respect of benefits we are no better off in these proposals than was the case in 1946.
I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary rather cursorily dismissed the important point that we have made, with which I will deal in a moment. He did not prove his case, and though I do not want to misrepresent him, I thought he was trying to hide behind the proposed benefits that are to be given to the war disabled people. Let me say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that while we are asking in this Bill for 2s. 6d.—it is a very modest plea indeed in the light of all that has been said this afternoon—we have no objection to the same rate of increase being given to the war disabled persons. In fact, we would like to see them have it.
The kernel of our case on this point is that the proposed increases in the rates of benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act are lagging behind the basic benefits of the National Insurance Act. I thought that the hon. Member for Barry was very seriously trading on our modesty when he said, "You can ask for 10s. and you can ask for even more than that." The reason we are not doing that is that we do not regard either these benefits or those in the National Insurance Act as adequate, because they bear no relation to the increased productivity that has taken place since 1946.
What we are concerned about is getting these small increases. We do not want to delay the proceedings one moment

more than is necessary. The only reason we are taking the attitude about these benefits that is shown by our Amendment is that we regard this as an interim Measure, and we shall have something further to say when we receive the Actuary's report on the quinquennial review.
The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that the increase in these rates of benefit would cost about £1,400,000. But, as my hon. Friends have stated, we are asking for a very modest 2s. 6d. for the person who receives industrial injuries benefit, the person receiving 100 per cent. disablement benefit, and lower rates for those who are assessed at a lower rate. What I want to put to the Minister—and I hope that he will take up this question when he comes to reply—is that of the 2s. 6d. for which we are asking, 2s. is to be found by the employers and employees, because the structure of the Scheme is such that four-fifths of the money going into the Industrial Injuries Fund is found by the employers and employees and only one-fifth by the Exchequer.
In the light of the very passionate speeches that have been made and the great interest which we on this side of the Committee take in persons sustaining accidents, becoming seriously disabled or diseased in industry, I hope that the Minister will not tell us that on this occasion the country cannot afford the £1,400,000 to meet this modest increase and the £1½ million for the war disabled. In view of the great interest taken by so many of us in injured persons, particularly those in the mining industry, I hope he will accept this Amendment. If he does not we propose, because of the strength of our feeling, to divide the Committee.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): We have had a good debate on a subject which always arouses keen emotions and feelings on the benches opposite, where there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have worked in difficult and dangerous occupations. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) knows, I played a part in passing various Acts during the wartime Coalition Government for the


improvement of workmen's compensation in different ways, and I played a part in framing the new Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme.
There is nothing I should welcome more than the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), namely, that before long we should have a full day's debate upon the provisions of that Scheme. It is five years old and contains many features which were experimental in character. The House could well spend a useful day looking into the way in which the Scheme has worked out in practice, because, however well one thinks that plans have been laid it is often found that, in practice. something miscarries.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), who made an interesting contribution, spoke as an employer of labour. He said that decent employers felt sick at the rates of Industrial Injury Insurance benefits—

Mr. J. Griffiths: He did not say that.

Mr. Collins: What I said was that one's first reaction to an accident when it is reported is to feel sick; the second, a few moments later, is to find out if one has been negligent in any way as an employer in order that more could be got for that man than the miserable allowance which is now proposed.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged. I am sorry if I misheard what the hon. Gentleman said.
However, it was rather with an eye on the possibility that employers in certain industries would wish to co-operate with their workpeople in providing for higher rates of benefit than those provided under the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme—which, after all, was a flat rate applicable to everybody, women as well as men; it was with a view to co-operation, and with a view to the preparation of supplementary schemes, that by an Amendment which, I think, I moved, we included in the Bill at the time we passed it a provision for supplementary schemes whereby the Scheme would itself take over, and help to administer, supplementary schemes where they were put forward by both sides of industry and approved by the Minister.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that there are supplementary schemes, and the Minister

will, no doubt, be glad to tell his hon. Friends that the first industry to take these up was a nationalised one.

Mr. Peake: Yes, indeed, and an industry with which I myself in the old days, like the right hon. Gentleman, used to be very familiar and closely connected. It is a reason for pride that the coal-mining industry, perhaps the most dangerous of all, was the first one to promote a scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "A statutory one."] It is the only statutory one. There may be voluntary ones in private firms of which I am not aware.

Mr. B. Taylor: It is the only one under the Act.

Mr. Peake: While this matter arouses keen emotions, what the Government and the Minister have to do is to try to produce a scheme that is balanced and fair as between the different kinds of people who have claims in respect of injury or misfortune. We all know it to be true, from our own experience of injured people, that there are many injuries for which a money payment can never be any adequate compensation. However, what we, as a Government, have to try to do is to produce schemes which are reasonably fair to the different claimants, and include the victims of disablement in war, injury in the course of industrial employment, and sheer misfortune in the ordinary way of life which is compensated under the National Insurance Scheme.
I agree with those who have said that we must maintain a good margin between the rates payable for industrial injuries and the rates payable under the National Insurance Scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly well remembers, one of the objections to the Beveridge proposals was that for the first 13 weeks of disability the proposal of the Beveridge Report was that the rate of compensation should be the same. We all saw at once that politically this would be unacceptable, and it is what started me working upon the Scheme which is now embodied in the Statute, and which is radically different from the Beveridge proposals.
What were the margins? The margin under the original 1946 proposals was between a National Insurance main benefit rate of 26s. and an industrial injuries rate of 45s. There is a margin


of 19s. there in favour of the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Today, the margin has moved up with the increase in the rates of benefit. The standard rate under National Insurance is 32s. 6d.; the standard rate under Industrial Injuries Insurance is 55s., so the margin moved up from 19s. to 22s. 6d. between 1946 and 1952.
The proposal in the Bill is that the main rate under National Insurance shall go to 40s. and the main rate under Industrial Injuries Insurance shall go to 67s. 6d. The margin is increased from 22s. 6d. to 27s. 6d. So it will be seen that the margin is moving all the time in favour of the industrial injuries rates as the rates of benefit under both schemes have been increased progressively.
The complaint made is that whereas the main rate under National Insurance, moving from 32s. 6d. to 40s., is increasing by 53¾ per cent., the main rate under the Industrial Injuries Scheme is only going up by precisely 50 per cent. The figures are not quite the same if we take the married rates. The comparison there is a little more favourable and, with the increase there for the married men, would be rather more than 50 per cent.—about 51 per cent. and a fraction.
If we take the seriously disabled man, we get a still more favourable comparison. Three years ago the main rate of Industrial Injuries benefit was 45s. for the single man, with the unemployability supplement at 20s. Under the Bill the main rate goes to 67s. 6d. and the unemployability supplement goes to 40s. This means that as against 65s. payable under the two benefits in 1950 or 1951, we get 107s. 6d. today, which is an increase of more like 65 per cent., so that we have weighted it rather in favour of the seriously disabled man. That is a feature which we borrowed from the War Pensions Scheme, where, ever since the war, the policy has been to weight it progressively in favour of the more seriously disabled men. I do not think that that is a policy to which anyone in any quarter of the Committee would take any serious exception.
Much as I should like to meet the hon. Member for Mansfield on this matter, I cannot do so. It is mainly for the reason that it would involve a considerable cost on the war pensions side. We should

have to do the same in respect of the war pension as is proposed for the industrial injuries benefit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been uncommonly good in finding for my Ministry another £15 million a year for the war pensioners. It would cost another £1·7 million to give an extra 2s. 6d. upon the basic rate.
I have listened with sympathy to the pleas made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. We have deliberately weighted the scheme in favour of the seriously disabled men, and I feel that, on the whole, to have put the 1946 rate up, and, indeed, the 1951 rate by 50 per cent. compared with a cost-of-living increase of 44 per cent. over the same period, is fairly and justly fulfilling the pledge that I have always made, to restore and do something more than restore, the 1946 values to the benefits. I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the Amendment. I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be too cross with me about it. If they win the next General Election they can put the matter right.

Mr. Joseph Slater: When the workers in the basic industries hear about the speech which the Minister has just made turning down our application for the small increase, they will be not only very disappointed but also very critical of him and the Government.
We have been reminded by the Minister and by speeches on other occasions that industrial injuries cannot be treated by themselves and that they are part of the overall National Insurance Scheme. That may be true, but I still believe that serious attention ought to be given to the part of the Scheme which provides for payment during the incapacity of workers.
It has many times been stated by hon. Members representing constituencies where there are heavy industries that if the workers are to be given the impetus which is required on their part by the Government and the country, care ought to be taken of them when they are unfortunate enough to be injured at their work. Many speeches were made by my hon. Friends and myself in Standing Committee when we proposed that there should be an increase of 50 per cent. in industrial injury benefits or that injured workmen should have, during their incapacity, benefits not less than the


national minimum wage for their industry. Yet the Minister has now turned down this small increase which has been proposed. It is all very well to praise the workers in industry for giving of their best and increasing the production which is so vital to our economy and then to turn down such an application as this, which would have cost £1½ million and would have benefited those who have been called upon to do so much.
The Minister of Labour in 1940, being unable to release men from the Armed Forces for mining, asked the trade unions to go to the employment exchanges and interview men signing on as unemployed miners in an effort to get them to return to the mining industry. On behalf of the Government, I interviewed many of them. On many occasions I was shocked at the very low income of those who had been injured in that industry. If we have another crisis like that, are the trade union leaders likely to be able to go to the employment exchanges and ask men to return to the mining industry when they know full well that the industrial injuries provisions will be inadequate if the men are seriously injured during that employment?
Apart from the interests of the workers in the basic industries, the Minister ought in the interests of the country as a whole to ensure that workers are treated fairly. He should take the Bill back and endeavour to grant the increase that we seek.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: Our case that there is discrimination against injured workmen has been well proved.
The Chancellor urges the workers to produce more, and yet the Minister discriminates against them if they are injured while they are obtaining the increased production which is so necessary for the country. The amount involved is 2s. 6d. per injured workman if he is 100 per cent. disabled. The total cost would be £1,200,000 per year from a fund which contains the huge amount of money to which reference has already been made.
It seems that the Government are against the proposal because of what it would involve in the case of disabled soldiers; but they are also discriminating against disabled soldiers to the extent of

2s. 6d. for every 100 per cent. disabled man. The Minister tells us that the £15 million for disabled men plus the other £1,700,000 is too much to ask the Exchequer to bear. Taxpayers who do not need it have had millions of pounds of tax relief from the last three Budgets, and yet we cannot be given £1,700,000 more to provide these extra benefits. When the people of the country learn of this discrimination they will have some harsh things to say.
The Minister has admitted the validity of our case. It is accepted that injured workmen and ex-soldiers are being discriminated against. I agree with the Opposition Front Bench that we ought to divide on the issue and show the people of the country that we will not stand for such discrimination.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. McKay: I am sorry if some hon. Members are displeased because I have risen at this moment, but we all have our opinions to express about the subject that we are discussing. All who are connected with miners take a great interest in industrial injuries provisions. It is a well known fact that in 1943 basic compensation was 40s. per week. According to the London and Cambridge indices, which are fairly good and more in line with the real cost of living, costs have so risen that to match a benefit which was then 40s. we would have to bring it up to about 65s. 6d.
We talk about our ideals, and how far we are advancing. We talk about how much we are doing in the industrial world and how much the workers are sacrificing by working overtime and in other ways in an attempt to put the country into a better condition. But we have not advanced very far with basic industrial benefits.
Most of the speakers have dealt with the man who is permanently injured, who is so seriously injured that he has to have constant attendance and other attention. But the Minister and everyone else knows that such men do not bring about the real cost of the scheme. That is accounted for by men in receipt of almost a 100 per cent. benefit. They are men who are sick for three to six months, and


they cost more than those difficult cases which are almost fatalities.
Are we dealing with this problem in its proper perspective? Are we really advancing? The prevailing wage rate from 1940 to 1943 was about 169s. and it is now about £10. At that time 40s. benefit was paid. When we compare that with the amount of compensation we are to pay under the Scheme, can we say that it is a very large advance?
A single man is to get about 67s. 6d. a week. He can scarcely get board and lodging for £3, so he has hardly as much pocket money as a man on National Assistance.

I do not want to say any more as it is important that we should divide. We are not playing a political game. We have asked for only half a crown because we thought that it was so little that the Government would have to give it. Had we been playing a political game, we would have asked for much more. But, taking general conditions into consideration, we thought that 2s. 6d. would have been granted.

Question put, That "sixty-seven shillings and sixpence" stand part of the Schedule: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 256.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[5.24 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Holland-Martin, C. J


Arbuthnot, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Holtis, M. C.


Armstrong, C. W.
Deedes, W. F.
Holt, A. F.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hope, Lord John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Baldwin, A. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Drewe, Sir C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Barlow, Sir John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Beaoh, Maj. Hicks
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Wrwk &amp; Lmgtn)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Elliott, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Errington, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Erroll, F. J.
Jennings, Sir Roland


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fell, A.



Birch, Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Er'c (Blackley)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Jones A. (Hall Green)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Bowen, E. R.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Kaberry, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fort, R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B


Boyle, Sir Edward
Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambton, Viscount


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. O. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Langford-Holt, J. A


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Leather, E. H. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Brooman-While, R. C.
Glover, D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Martin


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bullard, D. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G


Campbell, Sir David
Grimond, J.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Longden, Gilbert


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)



Channon, H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harris, Reader (Helton)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McAdden, S. J.


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Colegate, W. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hay, John
McKibbin, A. J.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Craddeck, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edward
Maclean, Fitzroy




Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Pitman, I. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Summers, G. S.


Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Powell, J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Profumo, J. D.
Teeling, W.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P, L. (Hereford)


Marples, A. E.
Ramsden, J. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maudling, R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Renton, D. L. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Medlicott, Brig. F
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Mellor, Sir John
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John


Molson, A. H. E,
Robertson, Sir David
Touche, Sir Gordon


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Robson-Brown, W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir Harold



Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Russell, R. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Neave, Airey
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nicholls, Harmar
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Vosper, D. F.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W
Wade, D. W.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Wall, Major Patrick


Odey, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Watkinson H. A.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Snadden, W. McN.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Soames, Capt. C.
Wellwood, W.


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Page, R. G.
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Partridge, E.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Perkins, Sir Robert
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wood, Hon. R.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)



Pickthorn, K. W. M
Storey, S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony


Albu, A. H.
Collins, V. J.
Grey, C. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Daines, P.
Hamilton, W. W.


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hannan, W.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hardy, E. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hargreaves, A.


Bartley, P.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R.
Deer, G.
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Delargy, H. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Benson, G.
Dodds N. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Beswick, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Herbison, Miss M


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E, N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hobson, C. R.


Bryton, W. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holman, P.


Boardman, H.
Edelman, M.
Holmes, Horace


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hoy, J. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hubbard, T. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Carmichael, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Champion, A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Chapman, W D.
Gibson, C. W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, James
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech


Clunie, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Coldrick, W.
Gordon Walker, Rt Hon P. C
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)




Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Owen, W, J.
Steele, T.


Keenan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Kenyon, C.
Paget, R. T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


King, Dr. H. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Kinley, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Swingler, S. T.


Lawson, G. M.
Pannell, Charles
Sylvester, G O.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parkin, B. T
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pearson, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Peart, T. F.
Thornton, E.


Logan, D. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Timmons, J


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.



McGhee, H. G.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McGovern, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


McInnes, J.
Probert, A. R.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T
Warbey, W. N.


McLeavy, F.
Pryde, D. J.
Watkins, T. E.


MacMiIlan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Webb Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McNell, Rt. Hon. H.
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Maltalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
West, D. G,


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Richards, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Manuel, A. C.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Mr. Eirene (E. Flint)


Marquand, RI. Hon. H. A
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mellish, R. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wigg, George


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Willey, F. T


Monslow, W.
Royle, C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Moody, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Morley, R.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mort, D L.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mulley, F. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Murray, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nally, W
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wyatt, W. L.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Yates, V. F.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


O'Brien, T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)



Oldfield, W. H.
Snow, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, column 4, to leave out "twenty-seven shillings and sixpence" and insert "forty shillings."
I regard this reference to special hardship as being the most important part of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I say that because it refers to those who are permanently disabled or unable to return to their pre-accident occupation. It is necessary to draw attention to the actual wording of the conditions which provide for hardship allowance. The 1946 Act, as amended in 1948, says:
… if as the result of the relevant loss of faculty the beneficiary is incapable and likely to remain permanently incapable of following his regular occupation; and is incapable of following employment of an equivalent standard which is suitable in his case or if as the result of the relevant loss of faculty the beneficiary is and has at all times since the end of the injury benefit period been incapable of following the said occupation or any such employment as aforesaid …

This hardship allowance was put into the Act with a view to giving some redress to workmen unable to return to their regular occupations. I should like to deal with the history of the matter. When a man sustains an accident and becomes incapable of following his employment he receives injury benefit under the Act for a maximum period of 26 weeks. Often a man returns to employment before the end of that time, but after 26 weeks the injury benefit period expires.
The man is then examined by a medical board to ascertain his entitlement to pension or disablement benefit. That assessment can vary between 1 per cent, and 100 per cent. Often men recover during the injury benefit period. Statistics for 1952 show that 746,000 cases were dealt with and that at the end of the injury benefit period there were 83,000 applications for disablement benefit.
The board assess the men on the basis of loss of faculty. This is a different system from workmen's compensation.


Under the old workmen's compensation system a man's payment depended on loss of earnings irrespective of the nature of the disability. Indeed, no regard was paid to the nature of the disability. One man may have been more seriously injured than another without there being any difference in benefit.
A seriously disabled man may have got very little, if any, compensation if he returned to some employment as a result of which he earned the equivalent of his pre-accident wages. The new Act altered the main principle and granted a basic pension irrespective of earnings. I have no quarrel with that. It is an excellent principle. Often men are able to return to work although they have not fully recovered and are unable to earn the equivalent of their pre-accident wage. Other men can take up a new avocation without any difficulty.
The new principle provided for a pension based on the fact that the recipients have less ability to enjoy life. Though they may be able to earn the same wages they are in a worse position than able-bodied men of the same age. Although I recognise that this is not the time to deal with it, we think that the assessment should be revised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) realised that there should be some compensation for the loss of earnings, for the payment of assessments purely on the basis of the loss of faculties was not sufficient.
A man is certified at, say, 10 per cent. which, under this Bill, would give him 6s. 9d. a week, compared with the old rate of 5s. 6d. If he is certified at 20 per cent., he will get 13s. 6d. But either 6s. 9d. or 13s. 6d. is utterly inadequate for a man who has lost his pre-accident occupation and therefore this hardship allowance comes to his aid. Before the war it was 11s. 3d. It was increased to a maximum of £1 per week, and it has remained at that figure since 1948. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that although the unemployability allowance has been increased, and other benefits also have been increased, this hardship allowance has not been increased until the advent of this Bill, and even now it is increased only to £1 7s. 6d.
The type of man we are dealing with is invariably a skilled man. He has been

trained for his job and has been encouraged to take up a skilled occupation in order to obtain a measure of security, or better pay than the majority of his fellows. In order to do so he may have made sacrifices. He then sustains an accident. For example, he may be an engine driver and lose an eye. On a strictly medical assessment that may not be regarded as a very serious disability, because his other eye is normal. But although he may be able to do many other jobs, he cannot ever be an engine driver again. He may become a ticket collector, but he has lost his future as an engine driver.
The same thing applies to a skilled miner on piecework. Such a man may find that, as a result of pneumoconiosis or some other disability, he can only do a labouring job on the surface. Or he may be a skilled craftsman who is reduced to doing some labouring job like carrying rivets or acting as a fitter's labourer. There are a number of such skilled men who will find their future blotted out in that way. The most difficult man to deal with is always the man who has earned high wages, the skilled man, because his future has gone.
This applies not only to the skilled man, but also to the man whose output has been high, the man who has been receiving good piece-work wages the collier who has been getting on with the job and responding to the appeal of the Government for more coal. All that such people will now receive, if they are assessed at 10 per cent., is 6s. 9d. plus a hardship allowance of £1 7s. 6d. Such a man may have been earning £12 or £15 a week. He may take a light job as a labourer at £7 a week and so finds that he has lost £4 or £5 a week or even more.
5.45 p.m.
For this reason, we regard the question of hardship as a most important aspect. We recognise that the loss of faculty is an important feature of this Measure, but the hardship allowance might be described as the "poor relation." When we debated this matter before, I gained the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was not over-sympathetic regarding this question of hardship allowance. He referred to the "slippery slope" of the hardship allowance. I do not wish to do the Minister


an injustice, because now, after he has had time to think, it may be that he has changed his opinion. During our previous discussions he rightly pointed out that there were serious anomalies and that he required time to examine the problem. I am hoping that, after two years, we shall now get from the Minister some definite undertaking concerning this very important matter.
I also wish to point out that the ceiling of the hardship allowance is limited and that we are not here altering the principles governing that. A man cannot obtain more than the maximum payment, which is £3 7s. 6d. If he is entitled to a hardship allowance of £1 7s. 6d., the other disablement benefits cannot go above the maximum. There are also other restrictions attaching to the payment of hardship allowance which are very severe. It should be remembered that a man who tries to continue in his employment, and does so for 12 months, but then finds it impossible to go on, cannot receive hardship allowance, and the provisions of this Bill do not alter that.
As I said during the debate on Second Reading, I am afraid that the Minister is hiding behind the Advisory Council. This question of hardship allowance was debated in Committee two years ago. At that time I know that the Minister was very concerned about some of these anomalies. But surely it is now time that we had in this Bill some reference to the hardship allowance and the principles which govern it.

Mr. Peake: I think that I asked the hon. Member if he had any suggestion to make regarding the payment of hardship allowance.

Mr. Finch: That is true, but it is a matter for general consideration. I did not know that it was my responsibility as as an individual—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think that this part of the argument goes beyond the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Finch: The class of men with whom we are dealing is a very limited one, and I think that we must regard the payment of £1 7s. 6d. as not meeting the position, for the reasons which I have

already indicated. The conditions are stringent and a ceiling is attached. In those circumstances, I am hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to assure us that this amount will be increased beyond £1 7s. 6d.
I have already pointed out how inadequate it can be to a man who has been earning a high wage and now has to take on a more menial job. The men we are concerned with are those who, by their output, have helped the country in its economic struggle for survival. We want men of their kind to continue to help us in the future, and we must remember that when men meet each other, especially in the mining industry, this question becomes very important. The men know that here is a man who, because of his output, was receiving a good wage; they know that he has had an accident, and they naturally want to know what he is now getting. When they find that he is getting only £1 14s., it discourages them from putting into the industry the productive effort which we all want.
Therefore, for reasons quite outside the humanitarian point of view, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a definite assurance that this hardship allowance will be increased beyond the amount at present provided, and that some of the principles underlying the granting of the allowance will be altered as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. Williams: At the outset I want to tell the Minister that if there is one point at which the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act may founder, it will be when such resentment is felt regarding the special hardship allowance that other provisions of the Act will become discredited. It will be a very sad thing if that happens. It is necessary for me to indicate the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to the special hardship allowance, and to show why we consider the proposed increase to be insufficient. To do that we must draw a very clear distinction 'between the two systems of payment in respect of industrial injuries, and show how that distinction has resulted in the hardship allowance being awarded at this figure.
The workmen's compensation system was based upon loss of wage-earning power, but the central principle of the


present system of payments for industrial injuries is based upon loss of faculty. Any system will be in danger if it becomes so unbalanced that it emphasises the importance of one principle as against the other. For instance, in the case of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it was assumed that once a payment was provided in respect of loss of wage-earning power, that was the end of the matter, and beyond that point the only question to be discussed was that of the adequacy of the payment. Through the years, it became evident: that that was going to be discredited by the piling up of masses of cases concerning men who were suffering from loss of faculty and were getting little or nothing in respect of it, because the calculations were based upon their earnings.
Why was that? Surely it was because it was not then fully appreciated—and I ask the Minister to appreciate it now—that from any industrial injury there must flow at least two consequences, First, there must obviously be a loss of faculty and, secondly, there must obviously be a loss of wage-earning power. If one attempts to over-simplify the problem by saying that a completely satisfactory system can be devised by providing compensation either for the one or for the other, it must follow that at the same time one is building up a number of cases which might become so considerable, important and influential, that they will discredit the whole system.
Under the workmen's compensation system, while many people were receiving financial benefit in respect of loss of wage-earning power, many others, through the years, were criticising the Act because they were seriously disabled and were getting little or nothing. They played their part in discrediting the system and were able to do so because there had been an over-emphasis upon that aspect of the question.
In our revulsion against this situation, we thought that we could put the matter right in future by concentrating upon loss of faculty. Our revulsion in this respect was so great that we thought we had solved the problem on the basis that once we took loss of faculty as the central principle, compensating for that on the basis of an assessment, there was nothing more to be done. We quickly

found that if we did that many cases would arise, just as before, which would be left out because they concerned men who had had comparatively small but very significant losses of faculty but very substantial losses of wage-earning power.
The difficulty was to introduce some method which would provide for that situation and, at the same time, not prejudice or imperil the central principle of loss of faculty. So the special hardship allowance was brought in under very stringent conditions. Even today the conditions upon which it is possible to obtain this allowance are very stringent, and are giving rise to criticisms and difficulties in all coalfields. It is certainly a fact that at a later stage the criterion will have to be considered, but upon that aspect I say nothing this afternoon.
What I do say, however, is that if we have a very small benefit in respect of loss of faculty and an enormous sum in respect of special hardship, it can be fairly said that we have the workmen's compensation system all over again, and it is likely to result in all kinds of difficulties and fall into discredit just as its predecessor did.
Some people are showing an indecent haste in coming to that conclusion. I should be the first to say that if one made the special hardship allowance the central principle and the loss of faculty a subordinate, poor relation, the whole system of compensation for industrial injuries would be in jeopardy. But there is no need to do that. It is a question of striking a proper balance. If the Minister takes the special hardship allowance, attaches stringent conditions to it, and, on top, gives an inadequate figure, it must follow that all he is doing is creating a fund of resentment which will ultimately destroy the very thing in which he believes and frustrate his intention of making the Industrial Injuries Act a good and running concern.
6.0 p.m.
In those circumstances, I ask the Minister to take very serious notice of the Amendment now before him. It is deliberately drafted in such a form that it does not go outside the scope of the Bill or to a point at which it imposes some financial burden upon the Fund which is beyond the capacity of the Minister to deal with. It does not place


the Minister in a position in which he has to prostrate himself before the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he can get the funds available. He can do all this within the resources available to him, and can strengthen this principle of the special hardship allowance, and thus very greatly help to stem the tide of resentment of those people who are today suffering legitimate grievances under the application of this particular principle.
So I leave the matter in his hands, and I say to him: "For heaven's sake, do not allow the over-simplification which destroyed one system to another now. Let us have full regard to the principle of loss of faculty. Let us put that at the highest point that lies within our financial resources and the generosity which we can apply in administering it, but let us, at the same time, recognise that people who suffer industrial injury suffer also loss of faculty. Let us see that these special hardships resulting from their jobs and causing loss of earnings are compensated for adequately."
If that is done, then the two great principles which must be considered in relation to every serious industrial injury will have been compensated for to the best of our ability. In this Bill, the Minister is not doing that; he is only doing a bit. I had to resort to very harsh words to the Minister in relation to the earlier part of the Bill. I am not approaching this matter harshly. I am saying that here is a chance for the Minister to do something which I really believe the right hon. Gentleman himself wants to do.
I do not think the Minister wants to have this great resentment based upon a maladjustment of two principles. I do not think he wants to be in a position ultimately of being faced with the discrediting of this scheme because he has not given proper attention to the amount which should be paid in respect of special hardship. If he listens to the experience of hon. Members on this side of the Committee on this matter, and if he is prepared in this Bill to increase the figure to that which we have suggested, I think it will be said in the country that he is really making an attempt to grapple with this very difficult problem.
As to one point on which the Minister intervened, on another occasion, but not

on this one, we will answer his question about the criteria, but, without bringing in any alteration of the criteria, on the question of the amount itself, I beg him to accept this Amendment and thereby make this a very much better Bill than it is at present.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): I rise at this stage because I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to make clear what my right hon. Friend has in mind. I do not wish in any way to curtail the debate.
I have listened carefully to both the speeches which have just been made, and I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) on skilfully presenting his case, which is something that I could not do within the rules of order. He did it clearly and fluently on this particular point of the special hardship allowance. I must confess that I have had little personal experience of this matter, but I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that industrial injury is one of the most moving of all injuries.
Sometimes, I have seen "tunnel devils" come out too quickly after working in compressed air, and there is no more pathetic sight than to see really first-class men who have been incapacitated through coming out of the compressed air to quickly. It is an intensely human problem, but, having said that, I must also say that the Bill we are now discussing is a rates Bill and not one dealing with conditions for benefit.
In the Amendment now before the Committee, the Opposition have put forward the figure of 40s. in place of the 27s. 6d. which we have in the Bill. Although the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have dealt, in an abbreviated way, with the history of the special hardship allowance, dwelling partly on the conditions and a good deal on hardship, I could not understand how they had arrived at the figure of 40s., or what calculations they had made to satisfy themselves that 40s. was the right figure. It is my job to show the Committee why we arrived at the figure of 27s. 6d.

Mr. Finch: To enlighten the hon. Gentleman, may I say that, before the


increase in the unemployability allowance, it was £1 per week, but we increased it to £2, I understand?

Mr. Marples: It was increased from 32s. 6d. to 40s.

Mr. J. Griffiths: They were both the same at one time.

Mr. Marples: As the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has said, special hardship allowance is a payment which can be made in addition to disablement benefit, but it cannot bring the aggregate payment in a case of partial disablement above the amount received by a man who is receiving the maximum disablement rate. I have looked at the history of the rates carefully, and, as I understand them—and I admit that I am not as familiar with the matter as some hon. Gentlemen opposite—in 1946 the first sum mentioned in the Bill was 11s. 3d. That amount was never really operative and never came into effect. In 1948, it went up to 20s. and now we propose to increase it to 27s. 6d.
The question which we must ask ourselves is whether my right hon. Friend has kept his promise to restore at least the 1946 position, and whether he is keeping that promise by raising the allowance to 27s. 6d. If we take the 11s. 3d. in 1946 as the basis, 50 per cent. added to that amount will still be below the 27s. 6d. which we have provided in this Bill. But let us take the 1948 figure of 20s., which was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I think the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in the 1948 Bill was this. He said that the conditions and the rate in 1946 were no longer applicable. The conditions were not good enough nor were the rates high enough in 1948, so he brought them up to date with new conditions and new rates.
If we take the new rate of 20s., introduced in 1948, and add to it an increase for the reduction in the value of money since then, we arrive at a figure just under that which is provided in the Bill—just under 27s. By that test, we have met the promise which my right hon. Friend made to bring the rate up to the 1946 level.
What would happen if this Amendment was accepted? It would do two things—and I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan that it does not materially

alter the conditions. It would alter, first, the rates, and increase them substantially, and, secondly, and more important, it would alter the balance of the whole Scheme as compared with 1946. It would be a substantial extension of the principle, so substantial as to cause an unbalance now as compared with 1946.
Having partial disablement a man can get a percentage of the disablement pension, whatever percentage is applicable—he cannot get the unemployability allowance—and, in addition, special hardship allowance in certain circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman had in mind two provisos in 1946 and 1948. The first was that the disablement pension for a partially disabled man, plus the special hardship allowance, should never come to more than the amount of the 100 per cent. disablement pension. The second was—and it was worked out in the right hon. Gentleman's balance of the Scheme—that only a man suffering from disability of 60 per cent. and upwards could reach with S.H.A. the amount of a 100 per cent. pension. That is the effect of the rate that he inserted in his Measure at that time. A man had to have 60 or up to 90 per cent. disability before he could get the rate of the maximum 100 per cent. disability pension by having the special hardship allowance.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not see the purpose of this exercise.

Mr. Marples: I am showing that anyone with a 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. disablement could never, under the right hon. Gentleman's Measure, reach the amount of the 100 per cent. pension. If we accept the Amendment, we shall disturb that balance, and anybody who gets a 40 per cent., or 50 per cent, disablement pension will be able, with the addition of the special hardship allowance, to reach the amount of the maximum 100 per cent. pension. It will alter the balance which existed when the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward in 1946. My right hon. Friend is pledged to restore that balance. I am seeking to prove that the rate in the Rill does restore that balance.
If we accepted the Amendment it would alter the differentials—it would favour the partially disabled man compared with the totally disabled man. A totally disabled man, or a man with a


90 per cent. disability, would then think, "I get no more than the total disablement allowance." To alter the balance is not what my right hon. Friend seeks to do in this Measure.
My right hon. Friend has kept his word; he has maintained the balance which the right hon. Member for Llanelly gave to the House and to the country in 1948, and he has done it slightly more generously. After looking at this matter most carefully, and at the special hardship allowance in relation to industrial injuries generally, it is clear to me, as my right hon. Friend said on the last Amendment, that a day's debate on industrial injuries would not be wasted and would be very well spent. This special hardship allowance is one of the most complicated and difficult problems that I have looked at. It bristles with anomalies and difficulties. It is easy to point to anomalies, but difficult to work out a scheme that is better than existing ones, and will not produce more anomalies than it corrects.
My right hon. Friend's mind is not closed at all. Any suggestion from any quarter on the question of conditions, which may come up later, will be welcomed. I would like to be helpful to the Committee. Inside our Department we have a long survey, running to about 55 paragraphs quoting many instances of hardship. It is a factual document. It was prepared by my predecessor, who is now at the Foreign Office. He offered to send it to any interested hon. Member, and I think one or two hon. Members did get copies. I renew that offer. If any hon. Member is interested in these conditions I will send a copy of the document to him, because it sets the problem out very clearly. My right hon. Friend will be grateful for any suggestion that hon. Members may make.
That is the Government's case. We have kept our promise to restore the 1946 balance and to level things up. This is a Bill concerning rates and not conditions, and I should be out of order if I dwelt any more on the subject of conditions. By increasing the rate from 20s. to 27s. 6d. my right hon. Friend has kept his pledge. I therefore hope that the Opposition will not press this Amendment to a Division.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I intervene not to close the debate, but to say something about the Parliamentary Secretary's reply in the hope that the Minister will listen and will reconsider the decision that has been announced.
The Minister said in the course of one of our debates that he was responsible for the main structure of this Scheme, which I accept. He added that I had made some decorations in 1945, when I was responsible for piloting a Bill on this subject through the House. How glad he is now of those "decorations," because without them the present Scheme would have failed. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Department and the trade unions know that is true. This point is relevant to our discussion and I shall keep within the bounds of order because I should hate, Sir Rhys, to be ruled out of order by the representative of one of the best counties in the United Kingdom.
We agree upon the central principle of the assessment of disablement for loss of faculty. There are many people now in industry who were injured under the old scheme by loss, say, of an arm, and who suffered serious disability. We are worried about this problem. We sought to raise the matter the other day, but we did not succeed completely. I join the Minister in hoping that we shall have a full day's debate in the very near future on the whole working of the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I also hope that we shall have the report of the quinquennial review, because that will help our discussion considerably.
In the course of preparing my Bill came up against a problem, which I will put very simply. Take the case of an engine driver, who has lost an eye. He is assessed for loss of faculty. Under the Bill, as originally conceived by the right hon. Gentleman, that is all the engine driver gets. Safety is of paramount importance. The railways have laid it down in regulations that an engine driver who loses an eye can never be an engine driver again. He is debarred from going back to his pre-accident employment and, therefore, to his pre-accident standard in the industry. Having only one eye, it is held to be against public interest to allow him ever again to be employed in that responsible position.
There are many variants of that situation. The result was that it was necessary for us to introduce a provision to deal with it. First, we introduced the principle of the 11s. 3d., which was never operated. The Parliamentary Secretary asked how this figure came about. It was 25 per cent. of the basic benefit. When I examined the case, and used my imagination and experience—acquired before I came to this House—I could see at once that 11 s. 3d. would not be adequate and would not give equity in the case of loss of faculty.
It is important not only that there should be equity in regard to injury and loss of faculty, but to see that the consequences of an accident are also treated in an equitable fashion. Half a dozen men can have the same loss of faculty, but the consequence upon their lives will be entirely different. There can be 20 variants, and that is what we had to provide for. Before the 1946 Bill became operative I told the House quite frankly that, on further examination, I had come to the conclusion that the 11s. 3d.—25 per cent.—was inadequate. I made it 20s, It is that, I repeat, which has saved the Scheme.
The present proposal, which, I hope, the Minister will accept, is to raise the amount from 20s. to 40s. It was left at 20s. in 1951, and in 1952. It has not been increased at all. At the time of the original Bill we were entering into the completely new field of loss of faculty. Our only experience in operating anything of that sort was in the realm of war injuries. In the case of wounded men, assessment had been based on loss of faculty, and the Ministry of Pensions, as it was then, had developed, over the years, a scale of assessments—loss of an eye, loss of a finger; it was a long and complicated list.
It was also a very comprehensive list, because it was based on the experience of injuries received in war—mainly in the 1914–18 war. That list, however, is very largely irrelevant to the industrial field. I should like to know how many assessments of industrial injuries are specified in that list. I should think that it is only a very small percentage.
Of all disablement pensions paid under the Scheme, 38 per cent. are paid to colliery workers. I hope that the country realises what those figures mean when

translated into human terms, because we should remember that there are 23 million or 24 million workers all told. Mining is my industry. It is 50 years ago this very year that I started my working life as a lad in the pit. I remember taking the schedule of assessments to my own village one day and trying to estimate how many men, in my life, would be covered by it. My conclusion was that there would be very few indeed.
As I say, we were entering an entirely new field in which the medical boards who had to assess the injuries had no experience to guide them. How could they have had any experience? There was no background of experience upon which to base the wide range of accidents and the even wider range of diseases. When I first came to the House, in 1936, there was compensation for silicosis, as it was then called in general terms. One had to hunt for a bit of quartz. I have hunted; I would not like to say how the hunt was conducted. Quite frankly, there was some collusion—"Poor fellow, let us find some quartz in him."
I am intensely disappointed at the low scale of assessments. One has to see whether compensation on the basis of loss of faculty is related to full equity. It does not do so unless, at the same time, there is also provided an element of compensation for consequent loss of livelihood. From the Ministry's Report for 1952 it would appear that nearly two-thirds of all disablement pensions paid were on 20 or 30 per cent. assessments. Under the Industrial Injuries Act only 4 per cent. are assessed at 100 per cent. If there had not been what the Minister termed a "decoration," this Scheme would have been smashed. Compensation for loss of faculty would have been so inequitable as to have created a first-class row which would have destroyed the Scheme.
Like the Minister, I want to maintain the structure. I am proud that after five years' experience there is, so far as I know, not a trade union in the country which desires a return to the old Workmen's Compensation Act—back to the old employers, back to the insurance companies, back to lump sum settlements and all their sordid story of exploitation; sending someone to get the poor chap to sign—and sign he did because he was in debt to the local shop. If we are to


maintain the structure we must deal with this problem. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the whole question of assessments. I should like that question investigated by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the right hon. Member is going a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Griffiths: No time should be lost in raising the amount provided for this hardship allowance. Only in that way can we prevent what, in South Wales, is the beginning of a campaign against low assessments and a hardship allowance of only 20s.
I am at one with the Minister in desiring to see the present system maintained, with loss of faculty continued as a basic principle, but the scale must be seen in relation to the present reasonable level of wages. I say "reasonable" advisedly. They are not high wages. They were catastrophically low in the 'twenties and 'thirties, but, having regard to the present more reasonable level of earnings, I say that unless the figure is raised very quickly there will be no need for a debate. The Scheme will break down. That would be a very great pity.
For those reasons I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I appeal to him to do so because I realise—having had some experience of industry—that, unless something is done, there is a very grave danger of the whole Scheme collapsing. That would be a very great pity. I hope that he will reconsider this now and accept the Amendment, or that he will at least undertake to consider it between now and when the Bill goes to another place. If he refuses to do so, he will be doing a great disservice to the Scheme which both he and I had some part in bringing into operation.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this matter is complicated and full of difficulties. We do not under-estimate the complications or the difficulties. As an old professor told me when I went to a technical school, and was confronted with a problem, difficulties are a means of progress if they are tackled in the proper way. I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that the complications and difficulties which

have been mentioned can be tackled in the proper way.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, this provision is the prop on which the Scheme is maintained. If we had not erected that prop, the whole edifice would have come down on top of us. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department are anxious to keep the roof up, and to do so the Minister has got to take some notice of the pitmen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said that the men for whom the special hardship allowance was framed are usually men getting high wages. The reason why those men earn high wages is that they work piece rates. We took the trouble to find out where the highest incidence of mining accidents occurred. It was not at the pit bottom or on the haulage roads, but at the kench and at the coal face. We also discovered that these accidents generally happen at a certain time of the day. Since a large number of these men earning high wages sustain severe accidents, they are, in the main, the men who are compelled to make application for special hardship allowance.
I would like to mention one or two cases, which could be multiplied by a score. I have in mind a collier in my area who sustained a very serious accident. He has not worked in the pit since. He has recovered to a point so that he is able to do a light job rather than idle his time away, but that job is of such a character that he could never earn the wages which he would have been receiving at the coal face. Therefore, he has to claim the hardship allowance.
I have another case in mind. When a man sustains a serious accident, he loses something else besides his earning ability. I knew a man who was an extraordinarily good cricketer, one of the best bowlers in the South-West Lancashire League. That man had an accident. If one wants to take something from a pitman which will cause him hardship and anxiety, one should take away his ability to indulge in sport. The hardship experienced by men through inability to play cricket or football is greater than any words of mine can describe. That man has to claim the hardship allowance.
Another man whom I knew was a brilliant pianist. He used to play at one


of the institutions during weekends. He had an accident to his hand, and two fingers had to be taken off. He got little or no compensation for that accident.
There is more substance in this matter than would appear to the Department. We know that the Department are sympathetic. It cannot help but be sympathetic if it approaches this matter in the right way. How can it not manifest its sympathy when it is aware of these men who, in the fullness of their physique, come out of the pits crippled for the rest of their lives?
We therefore ask that the figure of 27s. 6d. which appears in the Bill should be increased to 40s. That figure of 40s. is not very much compared with other benefits which other people receive. So far, as this Bill has proceeded through Committee, we have secured "nowt," as we say in Lancashire. The Minister has not given us a bawbee.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is Scotch.

Mr. Brown: Yes, in Lancashire it is "nowt" and in Scotland it is "a bawbee."
I apologise for mentioning the mining industry so often, but I worked in that industry for 35½ years, and I know how the miners feel. The question which always occupies the minds a men in industry is, "Am I getting a fair deal? Are the Government trying to protect me for the service that I render to the nation?" I have always said, and I repeat, that as long as we have wars we shall have sick and wounded men, and as long as we have industry we shall have broken and bruised men. It is our job, therefore, to safeguard those who are broken and bruised on the wheel of industry. Our job is to see that those who render valuable service to the nation are protected from the hazards which many are called upon to face.
This will not cost the Ministry anything. The Minister is trying to pull funny faces because I said that. I hear one of my hon. Friends say, "Ask him what it will cost." But I am not so much concerned about the cost in these cases. There is no hon. Member, however brilliant he may be at computing figures and putting them down on paper, who can estimate the value of human life and enjoyment in terms of £ s. d. I challenge

the Minister and his Department to tell me the actual cost of a limb.
Let us get away from that attitude. Let us say, "Here are men who, while performing their daily round and common task, are giving to the nation what the nation requires, whatever may be the industry in which they are engaged. So long as they are prepared to make sacrifices and run risks, so long is there an obligation upon the House of Commons and the Government to ensure that the rates of benefits paid to them in the form of compensation, the unemployability allowance and the hardship allowance, are adequate for the service which they render to the nation."
I reinforce the plea which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). If the Minister cannot give us a firm promise this afternoon, he should take the Scheme back and re-examine it in the light of the points of view which we have expressed. If he sees the wisdom of what we advocate, I am sure, knowing the mining industry and the psychology of the miners, that the miners will say "The Government are, after all, prepared to do something for us for the service which we have rendered to them and the response that we have made to the call for increased production of coal."

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg the Minister to demonstrate to the Committee that he really is willing to consider our Amendments seriously. There has been no evidence yesterday or today that he is willing seriously to consider any Amendments at all. If his mind is as closed as it appears to be, he is making a mockery of Parliament. We are not really having a Committee stage; it is just an opportunity for my hon. Friends to make speeches analysing certain of the Bill's provisions. The Minister is apparently determined to pass the Bill into law in exactly the form in which it was presented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said that he was not interested in the cost of the concession, but I think we might be told how little it is that the Minister is unwilling to concede. I ask the Minister to give some thought to what my hon. Friends have said will be the cost of not making the concession.
Yesterday, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) praising earlier workmen's compensation legislation. I dissented from almost everything he said about the old Acts. However, I remember a miner working with me in the middle of the war. He suffered a serious injury to his hand and got compensation under the old Act. He could not return to his work at the coal face, so the colliery employed him on the surface. When he went to the lower-paid job, he had to have half the difference between his new earnings and his pre-accident earnings with the maximum compensation rate.
When he took the new job on the surface he found that his full compensation rate was reduced by 3d. If that accident were to happen in 1955, under the Bill the man would get less than he got in 1943; and we should also bear in mind the change in the value of money since then.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That was the argument that I tried to put before the Committee.

Mr. Fraser: It was the exception in my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Silverman: It was the only point I made.

Mr. Fraser: Then, apparently, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to arouse any controversy about this. My main point, apart from other things about which there might be controversy, was that what an injured workman, particularly a seriously injured man, gets out of the Bill is, in most cases, less than he would have got under the old Act with the war-time increase.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: That is most certainly not the position. Those of us who have lived among the miners know that my hon. Friend's statement is absolutely wrong, but the sort of man who is not so generously treated as he was during the war years is the one who has to take a lower-paid job than the one he had before his accident.
We have heard a lot in recent years about high earnings, by many miners. Much publicity has been given to that.

Today, we are concerned not only with the miners but also with other workers who, as a result of special skill, are earning high wages.

Mr. Jack Jones: Much higher wages than miners.

Mr. Fraser: Generally speaking, the higher the wages are in industry, the greater is the contribution being made by the worker concerned to our national well-being.
We are anxious that the miners shall go to the coal face and work hard, risking their lives and, certainly, very serious injury, to produce the maximum amount of coal so that we may achieve optimum production. If we are to encourage them to do that, surely we have a responsibility to offer them some protection against a deplorably low standard of living if they are unfortunate enough to suffer an accident which entails their permanently giving up their highly skilled jobs. That is what we are asking for.
We have departed from the principle of giving all injured workmen a similar benefit by reference to the degree of disability and leaving it at that. We have said that, if a man suffers special hardship because he cannot return to his former job or cannot take another job yielding a similar wage, we have a responsibility to take account of his new rate of earnings in comparison with the wages earned by the most highly skilled workers.
This concerns not only miners. We live in an age of technological progress in which numbers of highly skilled men in very many branches of industry are earning high wages. We are all pleased that that is so, for then people are making a great contribution to the wealth of the country and to the well-being of all of us through the use of their exceptional skill. Yet a worker earning £20 or £30 a week may lose a couple of fingers and, a few months later, find himself in a job in which he can earn no more than £10 a week. All he gets is a small disablement pension by reference to his loss of faculty.
We are not complaining about his position, but we are complaining that the other fellow with £20 or £30 a week who loses two fingers and cannot go back to the job he had and employ his skill in his interest and the interests of the whole


community has to go back to a job at £5 or £6 a week. That man should not only have the small disability pension of 27s. 6d. for hardship allowance. It is not enough.
I am not sure that 40s. mentioned in the Amendment is enough. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment did not say that it was a final figure. We say that the whole scheme is in danger of breaking down if we leave it at this low level. My hon. Friend said, quite fairly and properly, that he had selected the figure of 40s. because, whatever it was in the 1946 Bill, it started operating at 20s.
It seems so obvious as scarcely to need repetition that there is very considerable feeling in industry about this matter. We do not want to go back to the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but we want to make the present Industrial Injuries Act a success. We know that we cannot rest completely on compensation for loss of faculty alone, but have to get some additional benefit for those suffering loss of earnings in consequence of an accident.
On both sides of the Committee we are continually urging the need for greater production. We are continually praising those whose researches have yielded new opportunities for increasing the nation's wealth. We urge the increase of technical and technological education to enable people to employ exceptional skills in the interests of the nation. Let us say to them this evening that we will increase this benefit to 40s., so that if they have the misfortune to meet with injury which makes it necessary for them to give up the job they have been trained to do and have done in our interest we may make this little contribution towards protecting the standard of life they have learned to enjoy and expect.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that when the Minister of Labour reads this debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will be appalled at the lack of foresight shown by the Minister in resisting this Amendment.
We have to remember that more men are needed in the mining industry. A few months ago, in an Adjournment debate, I pressed the Government to tell the House exactly how they proposed to

recruit people into the mining industry. We were told that they were going to carry on a recruiting campaign, not only in the mining areas, but in the South of England. I wonder what Ministers opposite think they are doing to help a recruiting campaign for bringing more men into the mining industry by refusing the very paltry increase demanded by this Amendment.
We are to ask people who, hitherto, have not worked in the mining industry to come into that industry. If we say, "If your spine is injured through your striving to increase the nation's coal output we are not prepared to give you £2 special hardship allowance," what will be the result? I represent a mining constituency and I know people who deserve special hardship allowance because, as a result of "nerves," they are no longer able to work in a mine. I remember the accident at Knockshinnoch. When an accident like that takes place and men are buried in the earth for a couple of days the Press is full of stories about the courage of miners, but when it comes to a question of giving an increase from 27s. 6d. to £2 the Minister turns a deaf ear.
I suggest that from every point of view the arguments for this increase are overwhelming. If the Minister is to be stubborn we shall have to expose his stubbornness throughout the length and breadth of the country. How much would this paltry increase cost? Perhaps he will tell us. If he does not tell us he ought to give us a reason for refusing to do so. Arguments against previous Amendments have been that the cost would be too much. Let us be told whether this Amendment is resisted on financial grounds.
We all know how a miner goes to his M.P. after exhausting all other means of getting what he thinks is justifiable compensation. He has been to his union, and specialists like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and other hon. Members give their advice to the injured man. After he has been before medical boards and has been turned down on legal grounds he comes to the Member of Parliament. We have to say that the medical board has the final decision and that, unfortunately, we cannot do anything more for him. Most of us have had to turn men away from


our homes in such circumstances. They go away with a burning sense of frustration and injustice such as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
We are told that a stripper who, as a result of injuries to his spine, is no longer able to do the hard work of producing coal, may have light work at the pithead, but there is competition for such light work. Everyone in a mining area knows that there are far more light jobs demanded by men who have been injured than can be given by the colliery management.
What we ask is not justice, but something approaching ordinary decency for these men. If we do not get a concession by acceptance of the Amendment we shall be justified in dividing the Committee and explaining to people outside that we have done our utmost to get some justice but that it has been refused by a miserable Ministry.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The only thing we can do with the special hardship allowance in this Bill is to alter the amount. The Minister has already proposed to increase the amount. We believe that it should be increased still more, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
The special hardship allowance has a very limited purpose, much too limited, in my opinion, to satisfy the growing demand for some compromise between the basis of compensation on the ground of loss of faculty and compensation on the ground of loss of earning capacity. I believe that that issue will have to be squarely faced before very long.
I fully support the appeals that have been made by my hon. and right hon. Friends to the Minister that he should increase the special hardship allowance to the amount we claim. I believe that that is necessary if this allowance is to fulfil the function given to it by the original Industrial Injuries Act. But let us recognise, at the same time, that it is of only limited purpose. I repeat that it cannot be regarded as the end of the problem of adjusting industrial injury provisions to meet the twin demands of loss of faculty and loss of earning capacity.
Some complaints have been made by my hon. Friends about the stringent conditions attaching to this allowance. They are, unhappily, stringent, but probably of necessity they are stringent having regard to the problems of administration of an allowance of this kind. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the background of the special hardship allowance is a body of civil servants who are trying to administer it. The more claims that there are for the special hardship allowance, the greater the difficulties thrown upon the administration; and in considering what is the future of the special hardship allowance, thought will also have to be given to administration.
It is extraordinarily difficult for a civil servant, sitting in an office, to decide whether an injured worker is, in fact, suffering loss of earning capacity, and yet that is the basis of the award that he is asked to make. Under the old workmen's compensation scheme, there were two parties to the dispute, the employer and the worker, and the employer had a say in whether the worker had lost his earning capacity. Moreover, it lay in the power of most employers to see that the injured worker did not lose earning capacity by putting him on alternative work at an equal, or even a higher, rate of pay. So that in any dispute which arose on the amount of compensation, the employer had his say and the worker and his union had their say.
But now, of course, the employer is out of it. It is the Ministry that has to hold the ring, and it is extraordinarily difficult—

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend says that under the Industrial Injuries Act the Ministry holds the ring; but, of course, it does not hold it. The Ministry is, in a sense, the other party. I would add to my hon. Friend's arguments about the old scheme that if the two parties, one of whom was the employer and the other the workman, could not agree, there was some form of third party judgment, however defective, which was able to hear and determine disputes.

Mr. Houghton: Probably, when I used the phrase "hold the ring," it was slightly mistaken. At all events, the Ministry is rather more than the other party, because it is really discharging a public responsibility. To that extent, the


Ministry has a burden which goes further than that of merely being a protagonist in a particular dispute.
I criticised the Minister fairly severely this week on other matters, and on this matter I wish to sympathise with him in one important respect. When we ask the Minister to discharge his obligations under the scheme, there is also an obligation upon those of us in the trade union movement to be doing constructive thinking about the future of this allowance and all that surrounds it in this complicated Scheme. I must accept some part of the responsibility for the Trades Union Congress not having yet, I believe, furnished the Minister with observations on the memorandum to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred and which was fairly freely circulated among some of my hon. Friends.
We have a responsibility in the trade union movement. It is our job to find the answer to this problem. I believe that the industrial injuries scheme, resting solely upon compensation for loss of faculty, cannot stand much longer without an additional structure to provide compensation for loss of earning power; otherwise, the utmost absurdities exist, looked at from the commonsense point of view of the injured worker.
A clerk may lose his leg and go on earning as much after his accident as before. To him, the compensation for loss of faculty will be what it is intended to be: that is, compensation for the loss of amenities of the two-legged man and to give him something extra for taking a cab when, otherwise, he might get crushed when standing in a queue waiting for a bus, or to have the other amenities which those who are injured in that way wish to have to make life more tolerable.
But a mineworker who loses a leg will get only the same compensation for loss of faculty as the clerk, yet to him it is the end of his job as a highly-skilled mineworker. He might have been earning £20 a week. Thereafter, he might be able to earn only £5 or £6 a week, and he is concerned with his special hardship allowance. Even if it were increased to the amount that the Amendment proposes, it still would not compensate him for the loss of his earning power. It would still compel him to live on his compensation, which was given to him to be some additional

income. As in the case of many war disabled and industrially disabled, it is compensation for the loss of amenities and loss of faculty and is in addition to their other income.
Those of us who are urging the Minister to do this thing have every right to do it, but, at the same time, we in the trade union movement must find our solution to this problem and ask the Minister to consider it and introduce it later in amending legislation.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) almost always makes a constructive and helpful contribution to our debates on this complicated subject, and I am obliged to him for the remarks which he has just addressed to the Committee. It is not altogether easy to keep on the right side of the rules of order in this matter, because the Bill deals with rates of benefit and contribution and the Amendment is directed to a rate of benefit set out in the Bill. On the other hand, I hope that I should not be out of order in saying, at any rate, what the special hardship allowance is and what it costs the Industrial Injuries Fund at the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in supporting the Amendment, which would double the present rate of the special hardship allowance to a maximum of 40s., compared it with the supplement for unemployability. So far as the amount is concerned, at any rate, he said that we are putting the unemployability supplement up to 40s., and that, therefore, the figures for the special hardship allowance should be of a corresponding character. They really have very little in common.
The special hardship allowance is a ceiling of 20s. at present, a maximum figure, not a fixed figure, and it is a ceiling within another ceiling which is the 100 per cent. disability compensation. Therefore, it goes to make up to a certain maximum a lower assessment of disability, according to the loss of earning capacity. Originally the special hardship allowance was conceived at something which would operate only in somewhat exceptional cases—the case of the engine driver's eye, the master printer's finger, and all the old examples which are familiar to us who are interested in this subject.
Of course, the change of the conditions—I must be careful here, Sir Charles—


in 1948 did greatly widen the scope and the cost of the allowance. It is interesting to note that in 1948, when these changes were made and the 20s. maximum was first fixed, it was thought of as being likely to arise in such a comparatively small proportion of cases that no increase in contribution to the Fund was then proposed to go towards meeting the cost of it.
It may interest hon. Members to know that the cost of the special hardship allowance at its present rate, 20s., is today about £3 million a year, and that that £3 million a year is about half of the whole of the sum being paid out in disablement pension, which is about £6 million a year. I am informed that the cost, therefore, of this Amendment, which would raise the level of maximum of the special hardship allowance from 27s. 6d. to 40s. would be no less than £2½ million a year. That is, of course, a very big increase in relation to the sort of changes we are contemplating in the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that the increase from 27s. 6d. to 40s. would cost the Fund £2½ million, because 20s. costs the Fund £3 million. Surely he has not got his calculations right. Surely there are many people who do not get 20s., because 20s. is the ceiling, and even though the ceiling were made 40s. many of the beneficiaries would not get anything like the whole 40s.

Mr. Peake: That may be so in theory, but in practice we find that virtually everybody, about 90 per cent., draw the allowance at its maximum rate.

Mr. Fraser: But would they if it were 40s.?

Mr. Peake: I am giving the Committee the best calculation I can, which is a calculation by the Government Actuary, that to raise the level to 40s. as the maximum would cost an additional £2½ million. By the Bill we are increasing the outgo of the Fund by some £7 million a year, so it will be seen that to add another £2½ million would make a very substantial alteration to the proposals which we have laid before the Committee.
This special hardship allowance is about the biggest headache which any

Minister of Pensions and National Insurance could have at any time. It really is full of anomalies and difficulties.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister would have a headache without it.

Mr. Peake: I dare say that that is true.
What we are considering is the relation between the amount of importance we attach to the loss of faculty on the one hand and on the other hand the loss of earnings, which was the main feature and basis of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.
7.15 p.m.
Two years ago, in Standing Committee, I resisted Amendments to increase the rate of the allowance. I thought that to increase the rate of the allowance might prejudice the chance of finding some solution of the difficulties and anomalies which this allowance had caused. I am sorry to say that although I have had informal discussions with members of the T.U.C., and have sent copies of our memorandum setting out our difficulties to several hon. Members opposite who, I know, are interested in this matter, and although I have given a lot of thought to the question myself, I have not myself been able to see any clear method of tackling the difficulties that confront us.
In these circumstances, I had to make up my mind what was the right thing to do in regard to the Bill. I decided that I must stop digging my heels in, come off the horse which I mounted in 1952, and increase the rate of the special hardship allowance. What we are proposing to do is to increase the rate from 20s. to 27s. 6d. It restores the 1948 value to the benefit and keeps the same relationship between the special hardship allowance and the main benefit rate as it exists at the present time. That is to say, at the 27s. 6d. rate the low assessment can be increased by about 40 per cent. as a result of the grant of the hardship allowance at the maximum.
That is what is proposed in the Bill, but we are still not out of our difficulties. These anomalies still confront us. I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should refer this matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

Mr. J. Griffiths: My suggestion was not that. I put it very seriously to the


Minister again, as one who has some knowledge of the matter. My suggestion was that he should reconsider this between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place. The matter can be considered already in the light of experience. I hope the Minister will do that, because, alternatively, we shall have to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Finch: Mr. Finchrose—

Mr. Peake: I have not quite finished my speech.

Mr. Finch: I want only to reinforce what my right hon. Friend has just said. I want to inform the right hon. Gentleman that many members of the trade union movement attach more importance to this special hardship allowance than to any other feature of the Bill. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully what he is going to do, because the industrial workers attach considerable importance to this matter. I beg him to re-consider the position.

Mr. Peake: What I was pointing out was that the Bill deals only with rates of benefit and rates of contribution. By the proposal to increase the industrial hardship allowance by this amount we maintain precisely the existing structure of the relationship between the rate of special hardship allowance on the one hand and the main pension or benefit rate upon the other. I do not think that I can go further and make a concession in regard to the amount proposed in the Bill. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman.
I have considered whether or not this would be a subject for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to consider. I do not like the idea of referring any problem to any advisory council unless I see a hope of its finding a solution to it, and before I refer this matter to the Council I should like to accept the offer, if it was an offer, of the hon. Member for Sowerby of possible further consultation of a more official character with the T.U.C. My contacts with the T.U.C. hitherto upon this matter have been of a quite informal character.
I should be quite ready at any time to enter into more official discussions with them if there were any chance of our reaching any kind of solution. I am also quite ready to consider referring the

matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, but I should like to think over that suggestion because I think that it would be quite unfair to refer to the Council a problem of which I saw no conceivable solution as a result of the Council having it placed before it.

Mr. Jack Jones: I rise to express the most profound disappointment at the statement which the Minister has just made. It is an affront to the skilled people of the country to be told that the Government will think about the matter or refer it to this body and have a chat with some other body. The main theme of the debate has settled round the highly skilled individual. We have heard, rightly, a great deal about the highly skilled miner. I should like to give the Minister very briefly the facts about what is going on in the steel industry. That is an industry which is earning wealth for the country with fewer men than have been employed in it for many years. Almost 30,000 fewer men are producing an increase this year of one million tons, at an average wage which has risen from £10 9s. last year to £11 2s. this year.
The average wage is going up, but individual wages of highly skilled men have proportionately gone up even more. I could show the Minister real men who work in a real job, who earn as much as £30 a week. They are earning it, not stealing it, in the sweat and moil and toil of the steel industry. The country depends upon these men, yet one spark can destroy a man's eyesight. He can be taken to hospital from a job at £4 per shift and, on his return, be unable to resume his own highly skilled work. He is generally given a job labouring about the works for £6 to £8 for a 48-hour week. That man immediately becomes a propagandist against what he regards as. a rotten Government who have made it impossible for him to obtain a decent sum in hardship allowance.
These men spend their time going, about complaining about real hardship and the relationship of what they have done for the nation to their present conditions in which they have their good standard of life taken away from them. When the Tory Government are shouting from the housetops about financial recovery and when profits and production are soaring, it is a tragedy that the


Government should say that it is impossible to give such a highly skilled person an additional 12s. 6d. per week.
It is not the 12s. 6d. about which the Minister should worry but the effect on the aggregate morale of people when they learn about the niggardly attitude of the Government towards this kind of thing. It is not the actual cash that matters to the Government but the maintenance of high morale, particularly in the three major industries—agriculture, coal and steel—from which the wealth of the country is derived. I have every sympathy for the bottom dog, and I have done as much as probably anyone in the Committee who is connected with a trade union to improve his lot, but this part of the Bill is concerned with concessions where special hardship is incurred. The Minister has failed to make the concessions and the blood is on his own head.

Mr. Finch: I am very sorry that the Minister has not thought fit to give us some assurance that he would reconsider the rates of benefit provided in the Bill. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to divide the Committee. The

right hon. Gentleman has spoken of un-employability allowance and the standard of living in 1948 compared with the present standard, but he has ignored the chief fact which has been repeated from this side of the Committee. It is that we are here concerned with the earnings of a skilled man who is called upon to increase production, the skilled engineer, electrician, miner and steel-worker upon whom the economic life of the country depends.

These men are asked to get on with the job and to increase output. By increasing output they increase their wages, but if one of these men sustains an accident and becomes disabled, the most he can receive is £1 7s. 6d. in hardship allowance. The right hon. Gentleman had a great opportunity to win to himself the industrial workers, but he has failed. Having failed, he must be informed that industrial workers throughout the country will criticise his attitude.

Question put, That "twenty-seven shillings and sixpence" stand part of the Schedule: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 247.

Division No. 7.
AYES
[7.27 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Burden, F. F. A.
Finlay, Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Channon, H.
Fort, R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Gammans, L. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barber, Anthony
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn.Ldr. Albert
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Gower, H. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimond, J.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bevins, J. R (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, F P.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Black, C. W.
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bowin, E. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Braine, B. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drewe, Sir C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heath, Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Duthie, W. S.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brooman-While, R. C.
Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Elliott, Rt. Hon. W E.
Hinchinbrooke, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bullard, D. G
Erroll, F. J
Hollis, M. C.


Bullus, Wins Commander E E
Fell, A.
Holt, A. F.




Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Howard, Hon. Grville (St. Ives)
Maude, Angus
Snadden, W. McN.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maudling, R,
Soames, Capt. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S L C
Spearman, A. C. M


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Speir, R. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Spent, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)


Hurd, A. R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife. E.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Neava, Airey
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Summers, G. S.


Jones, A. (Hall Gram)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Oakshott, H. D.
Testing, W.


Kerr, H. W
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Larrbert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim N)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lampton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Tilney, John


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lindsay, Martin
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Turner, H. F. L.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon G
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L.
Vosper, D. F.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C
Profumo, J. D.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W
Ramsden, J, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J
Ridsdale, J. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


McCorquodale, Rt Hon M S
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Watkinson, H. A.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Robertson, Sir David
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


McKibbin, A. J.
Robson-Brown, W.
Wellwood, W.



Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wills, G.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wood, Hon. R.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Woollam, John Victor


Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott, R. Donald



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Sharples, Maj. R. C
Mr. Redmayne and


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Shepherd, William
Mr. Robert Allan.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Deer, G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burke, W. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Donnelly, D. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Castle, Mrs. B. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Baird, J.
Champion, A J
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Balfour, A.
Chapman, W D
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bartley, P.
Chetwynd, G R
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bence, C R.
Clunie, J
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Benson, G.
Collick, P. H.
Fienburgh, W.


Beswick, F.
Collins, V. J.
Finch, H. J.


Bing, G. H. C
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Follick, M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove W. G.
Foot, M. M.


Bryton, W R.
Cradcock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forman. J. C.


Boardman, H
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bowden, H. W.
Daines, P.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield E.)
Gibson, C. W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, James







Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Short, E. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Gray, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann. Mrs. Jean
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt Hon. H A
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mason, Roy
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Halt, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hamilton, W. W
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, J. W.



Monslow, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.
Steele, T.


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Houghton, Douglas
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hubbard, T. F.
Orbach, M.
Thornton, E.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, W. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Viant, S. P.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Warbey, W. N.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Paton, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pearson, A.
West, D. G.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.
Wheelden, W. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Probert, A. R.
Wigg, George


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
Willey, F. T.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


King, Dr. H. M
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camiachie)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lawson, G M.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R (Droylsden)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Richards, R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Yates, V. F.


McGhee, H. G
Ross, William
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McGovern, J
Royle, C



McInnes, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.


NeLeavy, F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Mr. McKay: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, at the end, to insert:


Section 19 (3)
Weekly rate of widow's pension payable in other circumstances than those specified in the subsection
thirty shillings
thirty shillings


The idea of this Amendment is to increase from 20s. to 30s. the amount given to a special class of widows whose claim arises from fatal accidents. One thing I would stress about the Amendment is that neither party will gain politi-

cally from it. If the Labour Party happens to be successful in the Division Lobbies it will not gain much from it, nor will the Government if they defeat it, because it will only affect—and I have got these figures from the Department—1,500 widows.
There are altogether 10,000 widows receiving benefits under this Bill because of fatal accidents to their husbands. The main plea I wish to make on this Amendment is for a small but special class of widow. I want to see her pensions raised, because the Bill proposes to raise practically all the categories under the Industrial Injuries Act except this


special class. I might explain in case anyone does not quite understand that there are four grades of widows receiving pensions under the Industrial Injuries Act.
The first grade is the widow who has no children and is over 50. She gets the full benefit of 45s. under this Bill. Then there is the widow who has children, and regardless of age she has the advantage of the full pension. Then comes the widow who has been receiving the pension and has had children. If she is 40 years of age and her youngest child ceases to be dependent on her, then she gets the full pension of 45s. under this Bill.
We established an Industrial Injuries Act because there was a feeling throughout the country that, when men suffered fatal injuries in the factory, the mine or elsewhere, there was special sympathy for those cases which does not arise in the case of the man who dies as a result of an ordinary illness. In their wisdom, the Government decided in 1946 that the widow of such a man, who was under 50 when the husband was killed, if she had no children could not receive the pension received by the other widows. So, instead of getting 45s. as did the others, under this Bill she will get only 20s., unless our Amendment is accepted.
I cannot understand the psychology or the reasoning of any body of men who, after considering this problem, have raised the benefits of practically all beneficiaries under this Measure, who have established the definite principle that even widows under the age of 50, who have no children, should have a special advantage over those whose husbands died under ordinary conditions, and then say that they are not prepared to consider these widows in the same way as the others because something was done in 1946 which was not logical or reasonable.
Even under the old compensation Acts, there was no age limit, and any widow who lost her husband as the result of a fatal accident received a definite benefit, the capital value of which has been £300 since 1940. If the benefit in accordance with that capital value had been granted in proportion to the rise in the cost of living since then, it would be somewhere about £700 under the old compensation Regulations. I believe I heard an argument put forward by the Minister to the

effect that the capital value of this 20s. was far beyond anything received by way of compensation. That was put forward as a reason why the Government were adopting the attitude they were. But admitting all that, admitting that the benefit to these widows is, in capital value, better than what they would have received under the old compensation laws, even with increases in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, that does not affect the situation. Whatever is the capital value of the 20s., it was established under the 1946 Act, and what the Government have to do today is to present a reasoned case why the benefits of these widows are not being raised as are those of the other beneficiaries.
7.45 p.m.
I do not see how a case can be made out, but I shall be surprised if, after this debate, the Government make any alteration of the benefits which were announced on the introduction of this Bill. Not one of our Amendments has been accepted and no suggestion has been made that there will be any improvement. We are reaching the position when this debate is a farce because the Government are not prepared to consider Amendments of any kind.
Has the Minister come to us here with the attitude that, regardless of reason, logic, fairness or necessity, the Government have decided that under no circumstances will they amend this Bill in order to increase any of the benefits? If that is the attitude, it is a remarkable one. It ignores the spirit of this Committee. If the Government, however, are prepared to do justice to these widows, I do not see how the Minister can avoid accepting this Amendment. There is no special condition attached to these widows which does not apply to a large number of others who get much higher benefits. For instance, some people think that widows should work, but that applies to those getting 45s. under this Bill.
If the Minister and his colleagues are satisfied that the arguments I have put forward are logical and reasonable, that we have established the fact that these widows have a special right in accordance with the psychology of the country and our own outlook as a House of Commons, I appeal to the Minister to indicate that he will consider amending at least this one benefit, thereby indicating that


there is some elasticity, some desire to meet a reasoned case.
The 20s. granted in 1946 is much reduced in value. What will 20s. do for this widow, even if she is able to work? In the normal case, it will only cover the rent and perhaps supply a little lighting. Under these conditions, as there is no political issue here and no side will get any political advantage, surely the Government, as reasonable men, will accept the Amendment.
The Amendment concerns only 1,500 widows, and the cost will be only £39,000 per year. If the Government cannot meet our request, I shall cease to expect any reason from them. Sometimes situations are used as political weapons, but this is not such a situation. I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): It is always a matter for speculation whether a Minister shortens or lengthens a debate by speaking in its early stages, but there are one or two considerations of lesser importance and one of very considerable importance which I think it right to put at the beginning, and I shall then invite the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) not to press the Amendment.
As he has said, the number involved is very small indeed, only 1,500, but that is no reason why we should discuss the subject with any less care. The debate is very closely linked with the one we had last night on the 10s. pension. That pension was given to those who were either beneficiaries before the 1946 Act or had reserved rights afterwards. The 20s. pension was given for different reasons. It was never related to subsistence. It was partly, perhaps mainly, in replacement of the lump sum, which went up to £400, which could have been obtained under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and was partly related to the award given to young, fit widows of Service men, which was at the same level and which it is not proposed to alter. I can say, in passing, that the actuarial benefit of a woman widowed at 49 is £850, which compares very favourably indeed with what could have been obtained earlier. The rules for qualification in the two cases are very similar except for the 10-year proviso.
I particularly do not want to put minor arguments to the Committee; I want to

concentrate on the main arguments. There are arguments relating to cost, and the cost is not formidable in view of the number involved. There are arguments about repercussions, as there always are when any proposal is made about the social services. It is also true that there are many people under National Insurance, who, in similar circumstances, would obtain nothing unless they had a reserved right to a 10s. pension.
What I regard as by far the most important argument is that this, just like the 10s. provision, is part of a wholly new attitude towards widowhood, an attitude which was beginning to form well before the Beveridge Report. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made the point very well indeed last night. The new attitude is that a woman's life is not finished because her husband dies. All the proposals have had that as a principle. In all the great legislation passed immediately after the war—it is worth remembering that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill was published as a Bill by the Coalition and Caretaker Governments and adopted in its entirety by the Socialist Party after it won the 1945 General Election—there has been enshrined the principle laid down in the Beveridge Report, that for a young widow who is able to work, has no children, is not for any other reason unable to support herself, and has no other qualification which would constitute a claim upon the social services, this pension, and this pension only, should be judged appropriate.
The Minister said last night that he was a little uneasy, and I think we all are, about the way some of the widowhood proposals have been working. No one knows better than the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) the difficulties and complications of the 10s. pension. I know that she looked carefully, as all Ministers who have held her office have done, to ascertain whether something could be done. What I am saying is entirely without criticism of the Socialist Government, but it would surely be right that we should look at the provisions for widowhood.
The Minister said last night that he would ask the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look at the whole subject. That is not merely the 10s.


matter, which was under discussion then, but the whole question of widowhood, including the age of 50 and other matters, to ascertain whether our attitude is entirely sound.
That is the only point that I want to put to the hon. Member. It is agreed that the matter to which he has referred should be looked at, but it is part of what I have called our attitude towards widowhood in these schemes. The Committee might divide on this subject, but it would be a pity to prejudice the review which is being entrusted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, from which I am sure we shall get a good deal of guidance. Although this is in the industrial injuries field and not strictly the National Insurance field, I think I have shown that the two problems are so linked that the advice that we get on one will have considerable relevance to the other, to put it no higher than that.
I suggest to the hon. Member that the very sympathetic reply which was given to the Committee last night about the question of the 10s. widow should cover this matter as well. While the review is taking place, it would be a pity to prejudice it. I repeat the assurance given last night that the Advisory Committee will examine the whole subject, which includes the matters raised by the hon. Member.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Minister has put his case in a most reasonable manner, but I am not sure that it would be right and proper for my hon. Friend immediately to withdraw the Amendment, leaving the matter to be looked at by the Advisory Committee, and to assume that the Minister has dealt adequately with it.
The Minister will appreciate the number of times that Ministers have during the last two days asserted that all the benefits under the 1946 Acts have been increased to their 1946 values. That has been said over and over again. But any of the Minister's hon. Friends who in the coming months boasts to his constituents that the Bill increases all the benefits given under the 1946 Act to at least their 1946 values will be telling an untruth, because there is one case in which the Minister says he is not willing so to increase the benefit. If he is not willing to increase it to its 1946 value, having

regard to the increase in the cost of living since 1946, he is saying that this class of beneficiary must be worse off now and must continue to be worse off until the House has had an opportunity of discussing and taking decisions upon some advice that will be given by the Advisory Committee in due course.
Was the Minister quite right when he compared these widows with what have been described as the 10s. widows? Ten-shilling widows do not get their benefits under the 1946 Act, which merely continues the type of benefit enjoyed before that Act was passed. These industrial widows are more comparable with the widows who are getting nothing, the women who have been widowed since 1948, who are under 50 years of age, who married after 5th July, 1948, and are not incapacitated. Such widows get nothing. These are the widows who are strictly comparable with the industrial widow.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I did not say that the two are strictly comparable. I said that I thought they were in the same class in the problems of widowhood. It is also true in a sense that these widows whom we are now discussing link up to legislation passed before the 1946 Act, because, as I said, this particular sum is partly at least in replacement of the total sum of £400 that could have been awarded under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. But I do not pretend for a moment that there is an exact parallel. There is not, for example, in the 10 years between the two.

Mr. T. Fraser: There is not a complete parallel, and that is why I thought that the Minister tended to confuse the House. The 10s. widows derive benefits from contributions made by their husbands under previous legislation. Widows getting this 20s., which we say should be 30s., get their benefits from the Industrial Injuries Fund towards which their husbands were making contributions under the Acts before 1946.
In 1946 a widow under 50 with children, or under 50 and incapacitated, or over 50, got a widow's pension of 30s. A widow under 50 not incapacitated and without children—perhaps a woman of 45 to 50 who has had five or six children—was given 20s. In 1952 the 30s. award went up to 37s. 6d. and is now going to 45s.
It would not prejudice the consideration of all these conditions of benefits given for widowhood if these widows were now also to get the same increase. They have to meet all the increased costs that fall on all other sections of the community and all other beneficiaries under the 1946 legislation. In 1947 they were given two-thirds of the benefits given to other widows. This Amendment would restore that proportion of two-thirds of the benefits given to other widows. If we do not accept this Amendment, the Committee is telling the National Insurance Advisory Committee that in our view childless, non-incapacitated widows under 50 are being too generously treated.
I do not want to tell a long story, but I ask the Minister to appreciate that there is considerable validity in my point. By refusing this Amendment and by giving these widows a lower benefit than they were getting under the 1946 Act—and that is what is being done—he will, in fact, be prejudicing the issue and will be giving a direction to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. If it is his wish that that Committee should examine this business objectively, I beg him to accept the Amendment.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I want to support my two hon. Friends. As the Minister said, last night we were informed not only that the question of the 10s. widow was coming before the Advisory Committee, but—if I understood correctly—it had already been before the Committee since March of this year. Many of us were not willing to accept even the explanation given by the Minister last night and, indeed, we voted against it.
We have the greatest sympathy with the position of the 10s. widow. We feel that it is quite impossible to compare the 10s. widow with the 20s. industrial widow. It was decided in 1946 that these widows had the right to this 20s. pension. They had the right because of the contributions made by their husbands. If it was considered at that time that 20s. was a reasonable amount to give to these women, surely the Minister cannot consider tonight that that same 20s. is a reasonable sum to be given to these women after this Measure reaches the Statute Book. It seems that the numbers are small, but even if they had been

large I hope that we on this side would have been making the same case as we are now making.
I beg the Minister to have this matter further considered to see if it is not possible to bring these women into line with other beneficiaries under the Bill; in other words, to give them a rise in their pension just as every other beneficiary covered by the 1946 Act is being given a rise. There are many other things I should liked to have said, but, as the Minister said, we have very important matters following.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should like to add a word or two before the hon. Member decides what he will do. I entirely agree that, large or small, this is an important matter and is certainly one that the House of Commons should consider. I do not in any way want to go back over my argument. I hope it did not sound too dogmatic and that I did not try to draw too precise an analogy between the 10s. widow and these widows.
I think that if my speech is read in HANSARD tomorrow it will be found that I made all the qualifications necessary. It seems to me, having listened to what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, that the main question here is not whether 20s. is too generous or not. I am not arguing on that issue at all. The simple fact seems to be that there are at least four different sorts of pensioners all of whom are, as I have put it, in the same sort of field. Their entitlements come under different Acts. Some arose before 1946. Some of them do not come strictly under legislation at all.
The problem of the 10s. widow, the problem of the young widow of an ex-Service man, the problem of those widows who get nothing at all under present legislation unless they happen to have a reserve title—all these are clearly linked together and are part of what I call—the term has been used before—the new attitude towards widowhood that has emerged in legislative form since the Beveridge Report.
I am not the least bit unsympathetic about this, but I genuinely believe that it would be a mistake, if we are to review the whole of our policy about widows' benefits, to make an alteration


in this respect now. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). I have admitted that this is a matter that ought to be looked at. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend indicated the right way of looking at it last night. We should look at the bigger issue and in doing that we should examine the position of this smaller number of persons.
I repeat my original suggestion that, on the whole, the best procedure is to follow out the reference to the National Insurance Advisory Committee of the whole of this problem.

Mr. McKay: I listened attentively to the Minister making his excuses on behalf of the Government for not accepting the Amendment. We all know that in practice sympathy without practical help does not amount to very much. In spite of the sympathy, the whole of the argument has been designed to complicate the position.
The Minister realises that there are problems affecting other widows which do not arise out of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. We are dealing with a special type of widow whose husband was killed in the factory or elsewhere. It has been admitted for generations that such a woman should receive benefit. Now, because we have problems which the Government want to refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the Minister shows sympathy but cannot do anything. The Minister knows that in justice we could raise these pensions by the same percentage as that applied to other benefits. That would not prevent him from dealing with the whole problem of widows generally.
The Minister knows perfectly well that that could be done. To my mind it is dishonest for him, representing the Government, to put up the argument which he advanced and to try to make experienced men on this side of the Committee believe that he does it because he wants to do justice. The Government are doing this because they have no argument. They have tried to camouflage and complicate the position and they have not attempted to deal with the problem.
In 1946 benefits for definite classes of people were established. The Minister referred to the widows of Army men. Even there there is a special consideration which gives them far more benefit

than these widows. The Army widows get their pension at 40. These others cannot get the full benefit until they are 50. If the Army widow pays more than 6s. a week in rent she can get extra assistance.
8.15 p.m.
If it is said that the cost does not matter but that it is a question of principle, I reply—and I believe it—that if these widows had been similar in number to the other categories of beneficiaries, then you would have had a different outlook. They represent a small body with no political power. If they had had tremendous power, like the old-age pensioners, I am positive that these benefits would have been increased.
I am positively disgusted to think that because they are small in number they cannot get fair treatment. There is no moral soundness behind the argument, and no real justice in the situation. There has been no effort to deal with the problem as it exists. Instead there has been an effort to camouflage it, to mix it up with other problems, and to claim that you are dealing with it fairly by suggesting that it should be sent to the Advisory Committee.
To put it in a fashion which will not discredit you, you should do the thing fairly and squarely and say that you are not prepared to pay. Then I could understand you better and respect you more as a Government.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks to the Minister or to anyone except me.

Mr. McKay: Perhaps I was getting a little bit too heated. Sometimes if one does not get a little bit excited and put one's heart and soul into the matter it is probably because one does not believe what one is saying. It is because I believe what I say and believe that the case is one of the fairest and most just that I press the matter. We are not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. We are prepared to have it established in the OFFICIAL REPORT that we believe in what we have propounded. The whole thing is unjust and unfair.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1946.)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 11, lines 20 to 26, to leave out columns 2 to 5 and add:


1
3½
1
3½
3
6
2
7


1
0½
1
0½
3
0½
2
1



8½

8½
2
0½
1
6



7

7
1
9
1
2½


We move for a short time from the benefits under the Bill where, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), hearts are stirred, emotions are roused, and all the human side of the Bill's provisions engage our attention. We must now come back to the counting house where we talk in millions, although we begin with pence.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the Exchequer supplement to its original proportion of one-fifth of the global contributions. The arithmetic is quite simple—probably too simple. I have added two-fifths to the amount shown in Part V of the Third Schedule. This simple method may not give precisely accurate results, but if the Minister is willing to restore the Exchequer supplement to the original 1946 proportions he will have plenty of people at hand to advise him as to what the figure should be.
As regards self-employed and non-employed persons, I realise that to add two-fifths to the amounts of the Exchequer supplement in the Bill is to increase still further a somewhat higher Exchequer supplement in those two categories than there has been in the past but, as I say, the principle of the thing is what we should now adopt. It is the principle to which the Minister himself attached considerable importance in our discussions in 1951.
Another point of explanation is that, if the proposed Exchequer supplements are substituted for those in the Bill, there will be a necessary adjustment of the contributions of both employers and employees which are dealt with earlier in the Schedule—unless, of course, the total contribution was further increased, which is not our intention, nor is it necessary. I will now pass to what may be in dispute between the Minister, my right hon. Friends, and myself.
The Exchequer supplement, or, as we often call it, the proportionate grant, is that part of the triple contribution which is paid by the Exchequer. The other two parts, in the case of employed persons, are paid by the employer and by the employee. There is nothing in the principal Act of 1946 which lays down permanently what these proportions should be, but the contribution rates and the Exchequer supplement set out in the First Schedule to the 1946 Act plainly showed that, originally, employers and employees together were to pay four-fifths of the total contribution, and the Exchequer the remaining one-fifth of the total amount.
The one-fifth proportion adopted at that time for the Exchequer supplement was, as the Minister explained in the Second Reading debate
… an amalgam of the proportions previously contributed for the purposes of health and unemployment insurance.
He went on to say:
There was no sort of Law of the Medes and Persians about it, but it was arbitrarily fixed—fairly fixed, I think—at one-fifth. The result was a Class I supplement from the Exchequer of 2s. 1d. per employed worker."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 977–8.]
The first thing which the Committee will notice is that, in Part V of the Third Schedule as it stands, the Exchequer supplement for a man is now only 1s. 10d. as compared with 2s. 1d. in 1946, notwithstanding the fact that the contributions from employers and employees are now so much higher than they were then.
The proportionate grant of one-fifth was altered in the Act of 1951. The Minister, in the speech from which I have quoted, gave some account—in my opinion, an unfair account—of the events of 1951. My speech, which followed that of the right hon. Gentleman, contained some criticisms of his handling of the facts and events of that time. Since the change was made in 1951—and we have not yet got back to the pre-1951 Exchequer supplement—I think it is important to pause for a few moments to see exactly what did happen in 1951.
In addition to the proportionate grant—that is, the Exchequer's share of current contributions—Section 2 (3, b) of the 1946 Act provided for an additional sum—usually called the block grant—to be paid into the National Insurance Fund to


meet the uncovered liabilities for retirement pensions for those who had not contributed to the Fund, or who had entered it late. This amount, provided for in the 1946 Act, was to begin at £36 million a year, and was to be increased by 4 million a year until it reached £60 million a year after which—this year—it was to be reviewed in the light of the quinquennial report of the Government Actuary.
That meant that, in 1951, the proportionate grant—which was then running at about £92 million a year—added to the block grant of between £40 million and £50 million a year, was building up the National Insurance Fund far beyond its immediate needs. There was about £140 million more going into the National Insurance Fund each year than was required to pay out benefits. In 1951, the Government Actuary drew attention to this, and recommended that £300 million of the surplus in the Fund—which was not needed and would never be needed—should be transferred to the reserve fund.
The question here arises—when is a reserve fund not a reserve fund? My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) yesterday explained very lucidly the difference between a reserve fund which is of dimensions actuarially necessary to guarantee the payment of benefits throughout the term of a person's insurance, and a fund of this kind which is, in reality, a phantom reserve fund. I call it so, because it is quite clear that the benefits payable out of the National Insurance Scheme can be paid only out of current incomes and not out of reserves. If it were ever thought to be necessary to draw on the reserve fund of the National Insurance Fund it would obviously be necessary for the Government to replace in that fund any money taken out of it because the reserve fund is invested in Government securities and in large holdings of stock in the nationalised industries of amounts so vast that it would be quite impossible for any Government to think of realising them without a grave disturbance of the market value of those holdings.
8.30 p.m.
Contrary to what has been alleged in political debate at one time or another, there was no raid on the fund in 1951. Nothing, in fact, was taken out of the

reserve fund in 1951. Nobody was deprived of anything as a result of the decision which was then taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not an insurance scheme. It is a contributory scheme. It is a scheme in which the State undertakes to pay certain benefits in return for specified contributions, and that is the long and the short of it. The State, in exacting certain contributions from insured persons and from employers, undertakes to add to those amounts to provide year by year a total sum adequate to pay the benefits under the scheme.
On all this I carry the Minister with me, although he does not happen to be in his place at the moment. I am confident in saying that, because on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, in 1951, he said:
It was never intended that the reserve fund should grow, as, in fact, it has done, and it was not intended to build up the reserves in earlier years to meet the great bulge in retirement benefits which will have to be met in 20 or 30 years' time. To build up the fund in that way would be both dangerous and liable to abuse. A fund of this sort is so big that it has to be under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to give the Chancellor the power to inject £140 million of new money every year into the gilt-edged market, places temptations in the way of a Chancellor which I think are too great for him to resist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 600.]
That is a quotation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am glad to say, has now returned to his place. So the right hon. Gentleman was in agreement with the general purpose behind the proposals of my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Now we will see what my right hon. Friend, in fact, proposed. He proposed that the proportionate grant—that is, the matter we are now discussing, the Exchequer share of current contributions—should be reduced from over £90 million a year to £27 million a year. That meant a reduction in the proportion of the Exchequer supplement from one-fifth to one-sixteenth. Reference to that proposal was made in what I thought were rather contemptuous terms by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading of this Bill.
My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor also proposed that the additional


sum—that is, the block grant—then running at between £40 million and £50 million a year, should be reduced to nothing in the second half of 1951, but should then begin again to rise sharply to £10 million, then to £30 million, then to £60 million in the three succeeding years, and then be reviewed by Parliament when the quinquennial review was complete.
The combination of those two proposals would have meant that the income of the fund would have been just about equal to the claims upon it. In other words, the National Insurance Fund would have kept in balance, having neither surplus nor deficiency, and that, I may add, was precisely the state of the Fund contemplated under the 1946 Act. It was made clear at the time by two of my right hon. Friends that these were temporary measures which would certainly have to be reviewed a few years afterwards when the so-called bulge of retirement pensions began a heavier claim upon the National Insurance Fund.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) stressed the need to restore the block grant about this time when it would be so badly needed to meet the current liabilities of the National Insurance Fund. The present Minister, in the course of his speech on that Bill, agreed that the block grant could be terminated for a few years until it was necessary once more to use it to meet the growing cost of retirement pensions. He made that clear in column 601 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 26th April, 1951. What he did do was to
take the strongest possible objection to … the reduction to a mere token figure of the proportionate and contractual part of the Exchequer contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 601.]
That was his sole point of disagreement with what was done in 1951. He objected to the reduction in the proportional grant from one-fifth to one-sixteenth, and both he and I had some comments to make on that in the debate on the Bill.
Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South devised a new proposal. I think it is important that this should go on the record, in view of all the mischief which has been made in different quarters on what is alleged to have happened in 1951, in view of the

allegations of raiding the Fund or cutting down the grants in some way so that, it is suggested, the interest of beneficiaries was prejudiced. This new proposal by my right hon. Friend was to terminate the block grant altogether until it would be needed again, and that was precisely what the present Minister thought could be done with the block grant at that time. My right hon. Friend also proposed to increase the Exchequer supplement from his original proposal, which was one-sixteenth, to one-seventh.
The net result of what was done in 1951, therefore, was a reduction in the Exchequer supplement from one-fifth to one-seventh, and the present Minister reluctantly accepted that alternative. His comment, as reported in column 979 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 8th December. 1954, and referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North was:
I saw the right hon. Member and got a settlement … Like a good trade unionist
—I should like to see the Minister's trade union card, but I will not press that matter now—
who is offered three-quarters of his demand, I settled for one-seventh.
When I asked the Minister, in the debate on 8th December, why he had not restored the Exchequer supplement from one-seventh to one-fifth in 1952, when he had the opportunity, he replied, as reported in column 1011:
The answer is that I struck a bargain with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I adhered to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 979–1011.]
So the Minister adopted the elegant posture of a man of his word. "A gentleman's word is his bond," he said "I made my bargain and stuck to it."
But in the circumstances of 1952 there was no need for the right hon. Gentleman to think that he was still chained to the Labour Party—none whatever. He could have done whatever he thought fit to do in 1952. Even if we grant him some excuses for not having done anything in 1952, he can surely make no excuses for not having done it in 1954. Surely after the quinquennial review, when all these matters had to come up again for review, he could have claimed his freedom and asked to be released from his pledges to the late Labour Government.
So we come to this very moment in time, when the right hon. Gentleman has not restored the Exchequer supplement to the one-fifth at which it stood before the Act of 1951. The purpose of the Amendment is to appeal to him once more to restore the supplement to one-fifth. Why has he not done it? I thought over that question and I wondered whether he had been influenced by paragraph 171 of the Phillips Report, where, incidentally, no explanation or argument is used in support of the Committee's suggestion that the Exchequer supplement should remain at one-seventh. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman had time to scan through the Phillips Report before he came to the House to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He certainly had not much time for any close study of it.
The Phillips Committee Report is singularly lacking in any explanation of why it still talks of one-seventh without examining the possibilities of restoring the Exchequer supplement to one-fifth. The situation is further confused by the reservation which was made by two persons appointed to the Phillips Committee by the Trades Union Congress. They made a stipulation about increased contributions which they wished to be conditional only on restoring the Exchequer grant to one-sixth. There appears to have been some confusion as to what was the pre-1951 figure.
Since the Minister is now putting up contributions over and above the actuarial needs of the present situation there seems very strong ground for pressing him to restore the Exchequer supplement to its original amount. The triple contribution should be brought into its 1946 proportion. Although the Minister may argue that there is nothing of the Law of the Medes and Persians about this, he will remember how strongly he objected to what was done in 1951. One would have thought that if only to vindicate himself he would have taken care to restore it this time.
It may be argued that when the one-fifth was agreed to in 1946 the expected rate of unemployment was higher than was proved by experience. But if there is to be any readjustment of contributions by reference to the anticipated level of unemployment the Exchequer supplement should not be the only one to reap advantage. It should be spread over the three parties to the contribution. As a matter

of fact, there is a huge hidden reserve in the contributions and the Minister said in April, 1951, that for every 1 per cent. drop in unemployment there was a saving to the National Insurance Fund of about £15 million a year.
As long as unemployment is provided for in the contribution by 4 per cent.—and in actual experience it is only 2½ per cent.—there will be a saving of £30 million a year to the National Insurance Fund. This hidden reserve, this surplus for unemployment provision, when the time comes will be converted into a subsidy for retirement pensions just as it has been up to now. The Minister has refused to take out of the proposed contribution the extra load for the merging cost of retirement pensions but, if the additional contribution is to be put on insured persons to meet those merging costs, the Exchequer supplement should be restored to its original level. This Amendment will give the Minister, or whoever replies to the debate for the Government, an opportunity to explain why they have not done so.
I wish to conclude by drawing attention to what I believe to be a very important tendency in the National Insurance Scheme. Much of what the Government are proposing and doing in this Bill is to turn the National Insurance Scheme finances very largely into a flat rate wages tax. The mere fact of depending higher contributions by reference to the proportion which contributions bear to earnings now compared with 1946—as the Minister has done—is a clear indication that the Minister regards himself free to levy contributions, not by reference to the principles or needs of the Scheme, but according to what he thinks he can justify as a form of taxation.
In my opinion, the Bill levies an additional tax before the Budget and it is made higher by the Minister's failure to lift the Exchequer supplement now being paid from one-seventh to one-fifth in accordance with the original intentions of the 1946 Act.

8.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has argued the principle of the one-fifth contribution with a wealth of historical knowledge. I hope that the hon. Member and


the Committee will forgive me if I do not go in detail over the whole of the past eight years. I think that the most helpful course I could pursue this evening would be to show to the Committee precisely what would be the effect if this Amendment were adopted.
The Phillips Committee recommended an Exchequer contribution equal to one-seventh rather than to one-fifth. I grant at once to the hon. Member that the Phillips Committee did not embark on any long argument in support of its statement. It may be that that Committee gave to the position the same kind of practical and up-to-date thought as I am proposing to give to it and that it felt that in the present circumstances, whatever may have been the case in the past, a proportion of one-seventh was the most suitable.
Early in his speech, the hon. Member made it clear that what he was arguing for was the principle. He agreed, I think, that the figures which his Amendment proposes do not represent precisely one-fifth. I do not quarrel with him about that—on the contrary, I agree with the hon. Member; if one were precisely adopting the principle, these figures would have to be somewhat altered.
There is one further point, which I should like to make before coming on to the financial figures, as to the future load on the Exchequer. On the whole, I have gained the impression during these debates that hon. Members opposite were suspicious of increasing the combined contribution—that is to say, the contribution from the insured person, from the employer and from the Exchequer—above what is actuarially required.
It is only fair to point out that if the Amendment were accepted, the Bill would be even more open to that kind of criticism from the Opposition; for the excess of the proposed contribution over the actuarial contribution at age 16, which, under the Bill, we know to be approximately 1s. 5¾d. for an employed male person, would be increased by the Amendment to no less than 2s. 2¾d.

Mr. R. Williams: Would that not put the hon. Gentleman and the Government in the position that they could be more

forthcoming in relation to those Amendments from this side of the Committee which call for increases in the benefits?

Mr. Brooke: It is difficult for me to go over what might have happened in this Committee if certain Amendments which were not moved had been moved or if other Amendments which were moved had been carried. I have to address myself to the Bill as it has proceeded through Committee up to date, and to see what would happen if the Bill were amended as the Amendment proposes.
The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the Exchequer supplement by about £38 million a year. Of course, it would be rather less next year, in 1955–56, because the new scale of contributions is not to operate before June. For all years after that, however, the Exchequer supplement would be increased by £38 million a year, and for 1957–58 and all subsequent years the deficiency payment from the Exchequer would be reduced by the same amount of £38 million a year. So, in practical terms, it would make no difference whatever to the total Exchequer contribution to the Fund except in the years 1955 to 1956 and 1956 to 1957. Therefore, the point which is at issue is a comparatively narrow one in financial terms. What the hon. Member wishes to establish, I can see, is that the Exchequer shall be contributing at least one-fifth of the total.

Mr. Houghton: I attach importance to the principle because the Minister attached importance to the principle, and when my right hon. Friend who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that what he was proposing to do made no real difference in financial terms he still objected on the principle, and that is what I am doing.

Mr. Brooke: I think that we have to decide what principles and what figures are suitable now in 1954—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and I am arguing in support of what the Phillips Committee, an independent body, has recommended, and am pointing out how little practical difference this Amendment would make.
The Committee is perfectly entitled to know how much the Exchequer is going to contribute. On the figures that we have in front of us, the total


Exchequer payment to the Fund over the next five years is not going to be 20 per cent., which is the minimum that the Amendment demands, but more like 23 per cent., and, indeed, it is going to be over 20 per cent. in every year except the one year 1956 to 1957. My calculation is that if this Amendment were carried an additional load of £31 million in 1955 to 1956 and of £33 million in 1956 to 1957 would fall upon the Exchequer. That sum of £64 million would be added to the Fund and would stay there. It would not go back, but would stay there, and there is no reason why the British nation should tax itself to the extent of an extra £64 million in these coming two years for that purpose.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Financial Secretary will realise, I hope, that the figures were put down in conjunction with other Amendments reducing the employees' contributions. I know we cannot discuss those Amendments now, but it is unreal to ignore them.

Mr. Brooke: Those Amendments have been disposed of and have been argued, and I think that I must address myself to the cogent case that the hon. Member for Sowerby put forward.
The hon. Member suggested that the Exchequer might, under the Bill's proposals, get out of its obligations, as it were, if, as we all hope, unemployment remained below 4 per cent. and did not rise to the 4 per cent. which was taken for the actuarial purpose by both this Government and the previous Government. Let me assure him that that is not the case. Even if in future years there were no rise in unemployment at all—and that is what we all earnestly hope for—what I have said would still be true. In the next quinquennium and even more so after that the Exchequer will be contributing more than one-fifth to the Fund. What we must look at is what the total Exchequer contribution will be. The effect of this Amendment would be that whoever should be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the next two years would have to impose additional taxation amounting to about £30 million a year.
No one can tell from which side of the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those years will come, though I presume that hon. Members

opposite hope that he will be one of themselves. He will not be precisely grateful to them if he finds his Budget prospects are worsened by £30 million through the acceptance of an Amendment which he will then see was completely unnecessary.
I submit that nothing would be gained by means of the Amendment, except that we should be subjecting British people to an additional taxation of £60 million in the next two years; and for all the rest of the time after 1957 there is no shadow of doubt that the Exchequer will be contributing more than 20 per cent. to the Fund. On those grounds I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I find the hon. Gentleman's argument totally unconvincing. In the first place, he said that if the Exchequer supplement were raised it would he necessary to impose additional taxation. That, of course, was on the assumption that the employee's contribution was not correspondingly reduced. But I explained on Second Reading and in moving the other main Amendment on employee's contribution yesterday, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) today, that all these three Amendments must be taken together. If the Financial Secretary proposes under the rules of order to ignore them all, it makes our debate unreal. We never conduct the Committee stage of a Finance Bill on that principle. It would make the whole Committee procedure artificial if we did.
The Financial Secretary said that it was partly due to the recommendation of the Phillips Committee that the Government are perpetuating this proposal of a one-seventh contribution. This makes the Government's conduct curiouser and curiouser throughout this affair. They follow the recommendations of the Phillips Committee in some important respects and ignore the recommendations of the Actuary's Report—

Mr. J. Griffiths: They said that they had not seen the Phillips Report before they put these things forward.

Mr. Jay: Yes, only yesterday the Minister of Health told us that it was on the Actuary's Report that they based these contributions and that they had not seen the Phillips Committee's Report


before they did so. We have had at least five versions of the story and all contradict each other.
The Financial Secretary told us that he understood that we did not want the contributions to exceed the actuarial figure, and he said that if the Amendment were accepted the Exchequer contribution would exceed that figure. We have never argued that the Exchequer contribution should not go above that figure. We have argued that it is unfair that the individual contributor should have to pay a sum above the actuarial figure. It is obvious that, owing to the emerging costs, the Exchequer contribution is bound to be above the actuarial figure. Therefore, that argument on the part of the Financial Secretary seems to show ignorance of the fundamental basis of the Scheme.
The Financial Secretary's other argument was in effect to say that it does not really matter how much the Exchequer pays by way of supplements and how much by way of block grants. The only thing that really mattered was the total, and the hon. Gentleman gave us some figures. But that is exactly the opposite of the argument which was put forward by the present Minister in 1951. On that argument, therefore, the Financial Secretary is out of step with the Minister.
It seems to me that, by claiming to stick to the one-seventh principle, so far from sticking to the bargain which was made in 1951, the Minister is departing from the bargain which we made jointly in the House of Commons with the contributor. The bargain made with the contributor, as a temporary scheme, was that the proportions should alter from one-fifth to one-seventh whilst there were surpluses piling up in the Fund.
9.0 p.m.
I only draw the attention of the Committee to these points of fact. First of all, the change to one-seventh in 1951 was because of the temporary piling up of the Fund. Secondly, the present Minister agreed to that policy and, as my hon. Friend said, agreed with the main reason given for it. Thirdly, the Fund is no longer piling up owing to the emergence of what has been called the additional old people. It is apparent from the Actuary's Memorandum that 1955–56 is the first year in which the expenditure of the Fund will exceed its income. Therefore,

that problem of piling up will have disappeared.
Just because the expenditure is going to exceed the income, we are told that the proportion has got to stay at one-seventh. That seems to me to be almost breaking faith with the contributors. They were told, in effect, in 1951 when the Fund was piling up that the Exchequer supplement had to go down to one-seventh, and now in 1954 when it is no longer piling up it is still to remain at one-seventh. So the Treasury is saying to the contributors, "Heads I win, tails you lose." For that reason, it seems to me that, so far from preserving a bargain, that is breaking it, and I hope my hon. Friends will press this Amendment.

Mr. R. Williams: The finances and economics of cloud-cuckoo land have been explained in some detail by the Financial Secretary and he must pardon hon. Members on this side of the Committee if they do not appear to be convinced by his arguments. As I understand them, he asks us to say that there was a good reason for retaining the one-seventh contribution because of a report which the Government have never seen, which published conclusions which coincided with the submissions which the Financial Secretary was making this evening, and which gave no reasons at all for coming to those conclusions. The Financial Secretary should find a stronger reason than that to submit to us if he expects us to accept the Government's case on this point which, speaking for myself, I most emphatically say we cannot.
Let me put to the Financial Secretary one point which perhaps he has not considered, and which is this. It is one thing to say that the contributory principle has a place in the National Insurance Scheme; it is another thing to say that we know enough about the administration of the Scheme and its financial implications to freeze for all time the proportions which have been fixed at this or that time in its past history. He is saying that we should, under present circumstances which are vastly different from the 1951 position, retain the proportion of one-seventh, and he is not saying a word to suggest that there could be any conceivable circumstances in which that proportion could be altered, say, to one-fifth, one-quarter or one-third.
The obligation rests squarely upon his shoulders, because, quite obviously, if the financial position in relation to them materially improves the contributors must, in some conceivable circumstances, be entitled to some relief; but the Financial Secretary has come before this Committee this evening and has had the effrontery to suggest that whatever the circumstances may be this one-seventh is sacrosanct and in no circumstances will the Treasury alter it unless it is forced to, and if it did alter it then presumably it would alter it to the extent of making an even smaller Exchequer proportion.
What would the consequence be then? The immediate consequence of this line of thought would be to throw a much greater burden upon the contributors, and, in my view, in the end the consequence would be to discredit the contributory principle altogether. The contributory principle serves up to a point a most useful purpose. I say that if the Treasury, in its blindness and with its terrific resources, which it so smugly tells us it can now dispose of, cannot make the additional contributions which we suggest, then there is no hope for the contributor ever getting any relief at all. In future, there is not much point in our having any debates.
Why should we discuss the question of what benefits and what contributions are to be paid if all that one has to do is to match particular benefits against what can simply be stated to be the automatic increase in contributions which would be necessary? And what virtue is there in going to the electors and saying. "In future, as production rises, you

will get much greater benefits but you will have to pay through the nose for them because, in no conceivable circumstances, will the Treasury increase its proportion of the Fund, however prosperous the budgetary position might be."

If ever anyone wanted to frame an indictment on the financial part of this Bill, the Financial Secretary, without intent, has certainly provided material for it. I put this point as strongly as I can to him: it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to try to isolate this Amendment and say that all this would mean would be that in the course of the next two years £60 million in taxation would fall upon the British public. Because he is taking the line he is, £120 million in that time is falling upon the contributors. If the hon. Gentleman had these additional resources through the acceptance of this Amendment, his colleague, the Minister, would be in a position to do something even between now and the remaining stages of this Bill, because the Minister must obviously feel that he is hamstrung by the fact that this contribution remains where it is.

I am very depressed by the contribution which the Financial Secretary has made to this debate, a contribution which is about as useless in its effect as that part of the contribution which the Exchequer itself is not making in relation to the Insurance Scheme.

Question put, That columns 2 to 5 stand part of the Schedule: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 252.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[9.8 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cary, Sir Robert


Allan, B. A. (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Nigel
Channon, H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Black, C. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L


Arbuthnot, John
Bowen, E. R.
Cole, Norman


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Colegate, W. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Braine, B. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Armstrong, C. W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Campbell, Sir David
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA




Donner, Sir P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R


Doughty, C. J. A
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P


Drayton, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Drewe, Sir C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ridsdale, J. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Martin
Robson-Brown, W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, Walt)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Russell, R. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Scott, R. Donald


Fletcher-Cooke, C
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Sharples, Maj. R. C


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Shepherd, William


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon T. O. (Poltok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Snadden, W. McN.


Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Gamer-Evans, E. H
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Glover, D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gough, C. F. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gower, H. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Storey, S.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.
Summers, G. S.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Teeling, W.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, P. J M. (Conway)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tilney, John


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Alrey
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, Harmar
Turner, H. F. L.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Hollis, M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Holt, A. F.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Oakshott, H. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Odey, G. W.
Wade, D. W.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Hurd, A. R.
Page, R. G.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Wellwood, W.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Woollam, John Victor


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.



Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Profumo, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ken, H. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Mr. Kaberry and


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ramsden, J. E.
Mr. Edward Wakefield


Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Albu, A. H.
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crows)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bartley, P
Bins, G. H. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bence, C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Blyton, W. R.




Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, A. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Richards, R.




Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Narmanton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Short, E. W.


Collins, V. J.
Kenyan, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Daines, P.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Linton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
McInnes, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Swingler, S. T.


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, E.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Follick, M.
Mason, Roy
Turner-Samuels, M.


Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Glanville, James
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
West, D. G.


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, George


Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Owen, W. J.
Willey, F. T.


Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pannell, Charles
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Holman, P.
Paton, J.
Yates, V. F.


Holmes, Horace
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Hoy, J. H.
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN SECOND SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1946.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 17, column 1, to leave out:
not being a married woman".
I cannot but regret that a series of Amendments—for I assume that we shall be taking together the remaining Amendments to Schedule 4 which raise the same point—which raise a question of such social importance should, owing to the structure of the Bill, come so late in our proceedings.
We have heard a good deal during the course of these debates about what is called the contributory principle. I have been trying to find out what it is. One version of it is perfectly clear. The Treasury version is that the Treasury contributes as little as possible and everybody else as much as possible. It did not require this Bill to let us know that. Another version is that the contributory principle is satisfied if those of the present generation make a handsome contribution to ensure benefits to those of the next generation. That is, no doubt, a contribution by one person and a benefit by another. Then again, is it possible that it could be, "He who contributes shall get back what he contributes with certain additions"?

Mr. Peake: On a point of order. For my guidance, and that of the Committee, could we be told whether we are dealing with the Amendment, in page 12, line 17?

The Deputy-Chairman: We are dealing with that, and the hon. and learned Member suggested that it would be convenient to discuss the whole of the Amendments to this Schedule at the same time.

Mr. Mitchison: The last suggestion was that the contributory principle was satisfied if you get your money back and something more. The one thing that is clear on the finances of the Bill is that that is not the contributory principle for the purposes of the Bill.
I have been considering a reasonable principle, I suggest to the Committee that there is an old Socialist maxim, which might even commend itself to

some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the best form of contributory principle is "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." I need not remind the learned hon. Members of this House that in the Interpretation Act "his" includes "her." That is what we are now considering.
We are considering one exceptional case of the married woman. I say "exceptional" advisedly. We are considering it in relation to two forms of benefit. One is sickness benefit, and the other is unemployment benefit. A man who pays a higher contribution than a woman, and an unmarried woman who pays the same contribution as a married woman, are both treated as ordinary contributors. The exceptional contributor, when we come to purposes of benefit, is the married woman.
There are quite a number of provisions relating specially to her with the object of her getting less in certain circumstances than either the man or the unmarried woman would get. Look at the importance of leaflet No. 1. It deals with "Married Women in National Insurance." The words that are printed in heavy type on the front of the leaflet are:
On marriage a woman may choose either to continue paying contributions … or to stop paying contributions and rely on her husband's insurance.
In the latter case, which is not the case with which we are now dealing, she gets a smaller range of benefit.
Suppose that she makes her choice, then, if she turns to Part Two, she will find out how her choice affects her rate of benefit. I have looked carefully through the leaflet. It is very clear. Like so many Government leaflets, it begins to get chatty towards the end. It is all in the third person until we get to a footnote and then that which has previously been "she" becomes "you." Oddly enough, when we get to a rather stodgy looking form at the end, called "married woman's election" the chatty principle is continued and we deal again with "you."
The one thing that the married woman is not told is, "if you make your choice to pay contributions—the same contributions as your husband James or your


daughter Jane—and then fall sick or are unemployed you will get less than either James or Jane."

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government leaflet does not tell the married woman that, but I think he is mistaken in thinking that the married woman has never been told. I seem to remember doing my best to tell her in 1946—without much support.

Mr. Mitchison: We all know that my hon. Friend has quite exceptional facilities for making his voice heard, but it is just possible that, on that occasion, some married women failed to hear him.

Mr. Silverman: It is, indeed, not merely possible but extremely probable. I think the reason is that on that occasion my hon. and learned Friend did not add his voice to mine, as he is doing now.

Mr. Mitchison: At any rate, the hon. Member and I are agreed that it is a matter to which proper publicity should be given.
I can assure hon. Members—although I think that they know it for themselves—that a great many married women do not realise this until the event. They then come to their Member and ask, "Is it fair that I, who paid the same contribution as my husband or my daughter, should not get the same benefit?" I have never been able to find the answer to that. I do not know what the answer is. If it is said to me, "Well, you put it in in 1946," I think I would reply that I am a firm believer in progress in any movement, and that if progress should be applied in any field of our affairs it is particularly necessary in regard to married women.
It is not so very long ago that married women could not have property of their own. The next stage was that this House passed a Resolution that women should have equal pay. It has never been implemented, but if it were possible to implement it both as regards women in public service and women in other employment, then, indeed, there would be a case for saying that they ought to pay the same contributions. So long as they are, in fact, getting less than men—and that, broadly speaking, is the case—it is only right, following the maxim I quoted at the beginning, that, according to their

ability, they should pay a smaller contribution.
If this Committee, or the House, wants to equalise the contributions, or says that they should be equalised, it cannot, in common justice, do so until the principle of equal pay is put into effect not only in the public service but by employers. I therefore think that, as regards married women, the first half of my maxim satisfactorily explains the difference between the two contributions.
There is another point. Nowadays, of course, married women are in practically every trade. If one goes to the north of England—and a right hon. Gentleman who sits even for a prosperous part of Leeds must be very well aware of this—one will find that the work married women are doing is quite essential to most—I do not say all—of the North Country industries. In my own Midland division, about half of the employees in the boot and shoe trade are women—and very largely married women. I doubt whether in those industries, any more than in our ordinary life, men and women could get along without the assistance of the one by the other. If that is the position, what is the real justification for this difference in benefit?
What we are talking about at the moment is unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. In the Report on the first quinquennial review I find two things, one of which is so well known that I do not need the Report to support me in quoting it. It is that the unemployment experience has been better than was expected at the time when the Act was originally introduced. We may, therefore, say, if we are to treat unemployment separately, that there is a bit to spare there.
9.30 p.m.
Next we come to sickness, and again the sickness experience has been considerably better than was expected. In paragraph 19 we find, by reference to Table M in an appendix at the end of the Report, what one would have expected, namely, that though the general sickness experience has been better than expected, it is the married women who stand most in need of sickness benefit and who draw it the most often. After all, one does not need a Report by the Government Actuary on the first quinquennial review to tell one that.
A married woman who goes to work nowadays does not thereby acquit herself of her duties as the person upon whom the whole household turns. The man may be the head of it. The queen and usually the king-pin—or the queen-pin, perhaps—is the married woman. She does not lose those responsibilities because she goes to work. The reason for this high sickness experience is simply that in the North of England and for many reasons in many industries, it is sometimes worth-while and sometimes absolutely necessary that the married woman should go to work too, and only too often she breaks her back by trying to do too much at home and combining it with doing industrial work at the same time. That is the reason, we all know, for what appears in Table M at the end of the Report.
Here we are in this Committee, representing this country and the men and women in it. We have been talking about finance all day until our heads reel. Let us think about social justice. Is there any real argument whatever for giving a married woman who is paying contributions in her own right a smaller benefit than her husband or unmarried daughter? If there is, I say in advance that I decline to recognise it, and I believe it to be fallacious without knowing what it is going to be. It seems to me so absolutely across every principle of decency and fairness in our common life that it must be wrong. On the other hand, I shall not be surprised if it is produced.
Married women have had to struggle in this country for their rights for a long time. They have not got them yet. This is one case where that could be put right. I am not so blind to realities as to suppose that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, representing as they do the party that conserves what is, are going to accept these Amendments and do the measure of social justice that they entail. I do not think they will. I earnestly hope that they will at least offer enough lip service to the principles I have been putting forward to enable us to say on a future occasion, "You are contradicting what you said when we talked about married women many years ago."
To some of them, I would say I hope they will go beyond that. I hope they

will be able for once to rise to the occasion and say, "We know this would be the right thing to do, but it cannot be done in this Bill." How many Measures there are in which right, for some sufficient reason, often for a Treasury reason, cannot be done! Too many. We might at least tonight, even if the Government will not accept the Amendment, unite in saying that it would be right to do this and that it must be done; and we might say that we will give more immediacy and efficiency to those good wishes and good statements than have as yet been given to similar statements and resolutions about equal pay.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on making what will be regarded as probably one of the best contributions in the Committee to the cause of women, and particularly of married women? I suppose that. as a married woman who is insured under the National Insurance Act, I ought to declare my interest, but I am sure that the Committee will not suspect that I am supporting the Amendment because of that interest. Indeed, we are not asking for privileges for married women. We are simply asking that a married woman who works outside the home should be treated equitably and in a way which is equivalent in terms of financial help under the scheme to that given to a married man or a bachelor, bearing in mind that the bachelor has no financial responsibility for children, for example, and to the single woman.
I have listened to the Minister, it seems, for so many days that I can almost anticipate his objections to the Amendment. May I anticipate what he will say? He will say that he refuses to accept the Amendment—because I am not optimistic enough to believe that he will accept it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Lady may get a shock.

Dr. Summerskill: And he will say that he is following precedent or that if he accepted the Amendment he would be injecting one more anomaly into the National Insurance Act.
May I, first, deal with the question of precedent? I plead guilty to the fact that when I was in his position I did not


amend the Act in the way in which I am asking that it should be amended now. What guided me then? We had before us certain assumptions which have been mentioned in the House before—assumptions which guided the framing of the Act. One assumption was that there would be 8 per cent. unemployment, and another was that the morbidity and mortality rate in the country could be related to the 1942–43 figures. All of these persuaded me that the size of the Fund would be limited and the number of people who would dip into it would be rather large. But all those assumptions proved fallacious.
I also had another category of workers in mind—the spinsters. I felt that at any rate for a number of years it was only fair that the married woman, who in times of sickness had a home to go to which was financed by her husband, should have a sickness benefit which was smaller than that of her husband and than that of the spinster. As we all know, the spinster's lot is entirely different. Often spinsters come to us, as Members of Parliament, and put their case. Often I have felt it was a poignant case. When sick and in need, not only is a spinster denied financial help, but she has to depend upon herself to see that the rent is paid and that all current expenses are met.
In the light of all that, I felt that for the time being the married woman should receive a benefit which was smaller. Therefore, the Minister may say that he is following precedent. That is very flattering to us, but why should he always say that he is following precedent? We do not pretend to be omnipotent nor to have the final answer to all these problems, but at the end of every debate the Minister says, "I am following your lead." We will forgive him tonight if he does not follow us but decides to take his own line and has the courage to say, "here is a case here and I will defy my advisers behind the scenes." He has not done that yet.
May I remind the Minister that this is the last Amendment. One appeal after another has been put to him on all the other Amendments, and he has been completely pachydermata. Not only is he pachydermata and has an indurated heart, but he also has an indurated skin.

We have been absolutely unable to penetrate his skin in any way. This is his last chance to say that he can take the initiative as a Minister. He can take the initiative, he can have the moral courage to say, "This is right and I am going to do it." There is no finer quality in the world than moral courage.
If he follows precedent the Minister may say that this would be injecting an anomaly, but that is one thing we are not doing tonight. All we are asking him to do tonight is to remove an anomaly, to remove a great anomaly. We have heard him and his hon. Friends talk on many occasions about tidying up the legislation. This is an excellent opportunity for him to tidy it up and to treat workers equally.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the position of the married woman? Why has society accepted this situation? It is accepted in the same way as unequal pay is accepted. Although not often expressed, in the minds of many people, men and women, is the feeling that two wages should not go into one home. The professions are excepted, this House is excepted, but in the homes of the workers there is a feeling that one wage is enough. That derives from the time of widespread unemployment in the days of Tory misrule, but today things have changed. There is full employment—we established that precedent also.
In many areas more workers are wanted and the married woman is coming into her own as a worker. Her position as a worker should be equated with all other workers. She has her husband helping to finance her home, but the bachelor who lives with his sisters is subsidised and the spinster, living with her mother and father, is very often subsidised also. Why should the married woman, as a worker, be singled out for this discrimination?
It has not been said before—perhaps we are only analysing the situation for the first time—but she is the only contributor to the scheme who is subject to a means test. No other worker is subject to a means test, but the married woman is, as her benefit depends upon her means. If it could be argued that the married woman was financially much better off than other workers, emotionally we might accept the case, but what is


the position? Last night we discussed widows and hon. Members opposite agreed that most widows who work are unskilled and are in low paid jobs. That goes for a large number of married women also. They go out of their homes, they are accustomed to domestic work, but for the most part—the exception, of course, is Lancashire—they are unskilled in other jobs and they are underpaid. So again we are talking about a category of workers who are certainly not financially very well off.
9.45 p.m.
We have talked about making contributions actuarially sound. Here, again, is an opportunity when we should relate benefits to the actuarial contribution of the married woman. I should like the Minister to look at the position in that way. He may be able to prove to me that actuarially the position of the married woman is not sound, but I should like to know exactly what the case is.
It is very easy to find an argument to support custom. The married woman is in this position probably because custom and prejudice have determined it. In thinking of these things it is easy to be emotional, and very difficult, even in the House of Commons, for reason to prevail when we are discussing the relationship of the sexes. No doubt that is why the numbers are so disproportionate in the House now, because reason very rarely prevails in these matters. I therefore ask the Minister tonight to dismiss custom and prejudice from his mind and to approach the subject in a purely rational manner.

Mr. S. Silverman: One of the ironies of public life that might make people cynical if they were not naturally immune from cynicism is to observe how simple moral truths are more easily perceived by people who have not the opportunity of operating them than by those who, without being omnipotent, at any rate have complete Parliamentary power to do whatever they like.
Another irony—I think we have all discovered it—is the ease with which one is able to persuade one's former colleagues of things of which one so lamentably failed to convince them while they were colleagues. I find myself tonight in complete and enthusiastic agreement with both my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who moved the Amendment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who has just spoken, and especially with one thing which she said that I was delighted to hear.
Nothing is more encouraging to a humble back bencher than to hear a distinguished Front Bencher urging upon the other side of the Committee, probably believing that the principle is of universal application, that it is a good thing in politics to say, "This is morally right, and I am going to do it." I believe that.

Dr. Summerskill: So do I.

Mr. Silverman: Therefore, since we both now believe it, it may be that the usual channels, which have become a little diverted in recent weeks, will perhaps in future flow in smoother and more continuous channels.
One of my difficulties tonight, of course, is that since the usual channels do not reach me I am left a little in doubt as to how far the conversion has gone. For instance, one can believe a thing sufficiently to persuade oneself to try to induce somebody to do it for oneself. Or one can believe a thing with an even greater degree of sincerity—perhaps not at the same time—and do it oneself when one has the power.
There is a third position, and it is on that third possibility that I should like some information, if I may have it. There is a position in between, where one no longer has the power to do it for oneself but one certainly has the power to persuade somebody else to do it, and when one also has the power. knowing that the thing is morally right, to vote for it.
I should very much like to know whether it is the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have said without equivocation of any kind what they want the Government to do, to divide the Committee upon it; because in case they are hesitating about it themselves I should like to assure them right away that I have no doubt or hesitation about it at all.
I thought this thing was right in 1946. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is easier in 1954 to do this right thing than it may have been in 1946. I concede that at once. How far the difference goes may be another matter, and I


hope to examine it in a moment, but it is certainly true, as she said, that it may be easier to do the right thing eight years afterwards, when the assumptions on which one based one's case have been tested, when one knows that some of the demands upon the funds have not been made and will not be made, when one knows the surpluses at one's disposal and the contributions that were collected on the basis that one might have to pay benefits at a rate which has not had to be paid.
I concede that at once. However, what is quite clear is that we are all as one, at any rate on this side of the Committee, in thinking that it is the right thing to do in 1954, and that we can do it in 1954. Therefore, it seems that there is no reason why we should not express that view in the Division Lobby—unless there has been equal conversion upon the other side. That we shall know in another two hours.
However doubtful it was in 1946, it is now clear and we know that there has not been in the period since then and now the 8 per cent. unemployment, and that, undoubtedly, makes a difference to the finance, but although it makes a difference to the finance it make no difference to the principle. None at all. If it is wrong now to take equal contributions for unequal benefits it was wrong in 1946, too, and there is no justification in principle for saying, as is said now in defence of what was done or what was not done in 1946, that we did not know what the financial strain upon the Fund would be and that, therefore, we expected married women to bear an illegitimate portion of such burden as there might be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) ought not to have done it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West ought not to have acquiesced in it, nor ought my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. He was not bound by any doctrine of collective responsibility of Cabinet or Government. There was nothing to prevent his saying in 1946 what he said tonight.
What is the intention of the Government about this? No one has been clearer throughout these debates—two days on Second Reading and two days in Committee—and no one has been more insistent than the Government upon the

contractual principle, upon the insurance basis, upon relating contributions to benefits. I do not think that one can do that altogether. Certainly, in the case of old-age pensions I do not see how it is possible to make the thing actuarially watertight over very long periods, but surely there is no justification for charging people exactly the same contribution where one knows from the start, and they know from the start, that they will not receive the same benefit for their contribution as other people receive for the same contribution.
On an actuarial basis how can one defend that discrimination? On a contractual basis how can one defend it? By reference to a contributory principle how can one defend it? The Government may say, as was forecast a little while ago, "You did it before us and so we are going on doing it now." My right hon. Friends, between 1945 and 1950, made a number of mistakes, as I am sure they would be the first to admit. They did not only make mistakes. They were, by and large, the best Government the country has ever had. They came to power inheriting a bankrupt country.
That phrase is not mine, it is the Prime Minister's. They inherited power at the end of a war which, apart from other things, was the most expensive war in history. Such investments as we had abroad had been spent in the services of the war, our export trade had been completely ruined, our factories were badly equipped, and many of them had been bombed and blitzed.
My right hon. Friends had to begin from scratch on a bankrupt country in a virtually bankrupt world, and they built up in those circumstances what we are debating tonight—the best comprehensive system of social insurance that this or any other country has ever had.

Dr. H. Morgan: Let hon. Members opposite put that in their pipes and smoke it.

Mr. Silverman: If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, now that they sit in the seats of the mighty, feel that they want to follow precedents set by the Labour Government between 1945 and 1950, let them follow precedents that were right and not those that were wrong.
If the Minister can tonight defend discrimination against married women


on principle, that is another matter. We will listen to the argument with care and attention. If there is in any way any principle by which it can be right to take from married women the same contribution as is taken from other people and give in return less than we give to other people, let us hear the argument.
If the Government cannot do that, it is no defence for them to say, "This thing is wrong, it was always wrong, it cannot be defended, but we are going to do it because you did it in 1946. We are following your example." That would be an intolerable position for any Government to occupy except on the usual basis that a Tory Government, when they give any social benefits, give as little as they can and get back in contributions as much as they can.
Married women are, on the whole, less politically organised than other people, and the Government can get away with taking more contributions from them and giving back less in benefits than they can risk with other people who are a greater organised force. Unless they are able to come forward with some defence in principle of this shockingly mean discrimination against people who find it difficult to defend themselves, the Government should not seek to get away on the basis that they are only following the mistakes of their predecessors.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: The speech to which we have just listened has left me in some confusion. Part of it seemed to be designed for the purpose of b getting, the Conservative Whip issued to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). l was almost at the stage of promising after this debate to go and see the Patronage Secretary with a view to getting the hon. Gentleman invited to the meeting of the 1922 Committee on Thursday next. The second half of the speech, I suppose, was designed to get the hon. Member the Labour Whip again.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman do me the favour of believing or saying, because I am sure he already believes it, that in both parts of my speech, if it was divisible at all, I was saying exactly what I believed, which has become with me a rather bad habit.

Mr. Harris: I have no doubt of that at all, and, in fact, I was ready to support in the main in what he was trying to say.
There are many aspects still of our National Insurance Scheme which I believe need cleaning up, if I may use that phrase. There are many things with which we are dissatisfied, many aspects of the Scheme which, if we were really logical, would prevent us calling it an Insurance Scheme at all, because in certain respects if similar things were tried out by any private enterprise insurance company they would bring down the wrath of the country on it and lose it all its customers. I do not need to go into the merits of that now, but such things as only allowing old-age pensioners to earn £2 a week before starting to deduct that from their old-age pension is—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is aware that some Tory local authorities in days gone by used to deduct the 10s. pension from an old man's dole?

Mr. Harris: I have no doubt about it, and I do not support it. I would condemn that as much as the old people.

Mr. Griffiths: But the Tory Party did not stop it.

Mr. Harris: There are other anomalies in the National Insurance Scheme. I always felt that if a contributor has not contributed enough contributions to get benefits, when he dies his representatives ought to have the contributions returned to them. Those are the sort of anomalies which want to be cleared up. Another is the one we are discussing tonight, the unequal treatment of married women. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was making a rather soap-box point when he said that the reason the Government are doing this to married women is that they are not organised in the way workers and other people are.

Mr. Silverman: I only said that if there was a better reason, no doubt the hon. Gentleman would give it.

Mr. Harris: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no more powerful political group in this country than the married women.

Mr. Silverman: Oh, no.

Mr. Harris: Oh, yes. The Housewives League—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know this is a sore point with


the Labour Party, but the Conservative Party draws a great deal of its support from the married women of this country. If they were being treated so badly, we should not get as many votes as we do. The married women of this country have fared very well under a Conservative Government. The West Derby result, and other results are good enough to prove that.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silvermanrose—

The Chairman: This is a very narrow Amendment. The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) is going very wide of it.

Mr. Harris: Sir Charles, we are discussing married women, and the point has been made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)—

The Chairman: We are discussing married women, but we are not discussing West Derby.

Mr. Harris: I still say, Sir Charles, that the married women of this country are treated well by the Conservative Party, by and large, but this is one of many respects in which I think we can treat them better. If we do, the net result will be that even more of them will vote Conservative. I ask the Minister to give this matter careful consideration. I do not suppose that he will be able to do anything in this Bill—

Mr. Silverman: Why not?

Mr. Harris: —at this particular stage. If he can, so much the better. If he cannot, I would ask him to bear this point in mind, together with the three anomalies I have mentioned, with a view to introducing a Bill after the next election when, of course, the Conservative Party will still be on this side of the House, with a view to clearing up some of these points which it is very necessary to do.

The Chairman: Mrs. Mann.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to point out—

The Chairman: I called the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann).

Mr. Silverman: Sir Charles, I would like to put a question to the hon. Gentleman before he concludes his speech.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has sat down and I have called the next speaker. Mrs. Mann.

Mrs. Jean Mann: As one of the much discussed married women, I am very pleased indeed to find that married women, who simply cannot be organised, have tonight—indeed, I think always have had—very strong support from the men in this House. Whilst I do not want to impugn anyone for this unfair discrimination, I am painfully aware that it is not exactly the prerogative of the other side; it goes back a long way, indeed I think it goes hack to the Blanesburgh Report.
I think, however, that times are changing, and that this unfair discrimination should cease. I noticed during the war, when married women were being persuaded to leave their homes and go out and help in the war effort, that the Chancellor arranged for a special married women's allowance for Income Tax of £112. Today it is £120, but it is still much less than the initial allowance which a man gets, and there is this further penalty, that her earnings are added to those of her husband, and so they both come into the higher rates of tax much more quickly. In addition to that unfair discrimination we have this, that when she is unemployed she must receive less than the unmarried girl, she must receive less than a woman who has left her husband, she must receive less than the woman whose husband has deserted her.
We are in the very queer position that the Government are inciting women to remain single because, by remaining single, they will have far better remuneration, will be treated in a much better way for Income Tax purposes and will be far better off if they happen to be unemployed or sick. So the call goes out today "Girls, remain single!" Perhaps some of them would do much better to remain single than to link themselves up with some of the husbands that they get, but in this year 1954 the Government go even further and incite women to leave their husbands. The Government say to the woman that she will get a higher benefit only if she is not residing with her husband.
Is the right hon. Gentleman actually taking up this position on the eve of


Christmas? Is he appearing as an un-Santa Claus and saying to the women in their homes, "You know, you would be far better off if you left. You would get 10s. a week more in sickness or unemployment benefit."

Mr. Mitchison: That does not quite follow. If a woman leaves her husband and the husband makes a contribution to her maintenance which does not amount to 10s., she will be worse off.

Mrs. Mann: The husband will probably not make a contribution at all. He will say, "You have made your bed, and now you must lie on it."
What we are apparently concerned about in the Schedule is the establishment of the male as the dominant sex. It is even worse than that. The Minister even incites a man to leave his wife. He says, "If you leave your wife, she will get a larger allowance when she is unemployed. If you remain with your wife and she puts up with your frills, fads and fancies and runs after you from morning till night, she will get 10s. less. If you leave her, we will give her 10s. more." It has all become like a fantasy of the Crazy Gang. It is time some attention was given to the matter and the status of the married woman raised at least to that of the man.

Mr. Marples: The mistake which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just made by clapping his hands when his hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) concluded—

Mr. Metchison: I apologise, Sir Charles, for my action.

Mr. Marples: —may well be forgiven because of the hon. Lady's excellent speech. She nearly always impresses the House by the force and sincerity of her contributions. On this occasions she has given us a lot to think about in many ways.
It has fallen to my lot to reply to this debate and I am in somewhat unfortunate circumstances. We have had five speakers so far; three were married men, two were married women. I do not have the advantage or assistance of a wife.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask if the hon. Member is really qualified to answer this debate?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Sit down.

Mr. Marples: I shall struggle with the questions of fact, in spite of the biological difficulties under which I suffer.

Mrs. Mann: The hon. Member is not detracting from any woman's allowance.

Dr. Summerskill: May I just protect the hon. Member's reputation in HANSARD and ask him to change biological to physiological?

Mr. Marples: I should welcome a direction from the right hon. Lady, because no doubt her experiences are more varied and extensive than mine.
I should like to deal with some of the contributions made in the earlier part of the debate. The references made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie are obviously dangerous ground for me. She said that girls would remain single because the Government was inciting them so to do; that married women would leave their husbands, again because the wicked Tory Government were responsible, and men would leave their wives and there was something about making a bed over Christmas which I could not follow.
Therefore I am going on to safer ground, because one is always safer dealing with points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He has at least the merit of being consistent. I remember that in 1946 he bitterly attacked the Government of the day, which was his own Government—he then had the advantage of having the Whip—and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) called in as reinforcement the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).
I well remember that, because I had to wait five hours for my Amendment to the Financial Resolution because of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I remember the remark I made on that occasion when he bitterly attacked the Government of the day—

Mr. S. Silverman: Not bitterly.

Mr. Marples: —I substitute the word "effectively" for "bitterly" — he attacked them in a most effective speech. He said that in Opposition they said that they would do something and in Government they failed to do it.
I remember my remark on that, because it is about the only bright remark I have ever made. I said that the real trouble with hon. Gentlemen was that they had never yet succeeded in reconciling the soap box with the Despatch Box. I waited for five hours and I would say to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the assumptions on which he based his speech in 1946 were well known in 1951.

Mr. S. Silverman: If they were well known in 1951, they were well known in 1946 and, presumably, well known to hon. Gentlemen. May I ask how the hon. Member behaved on that occasion? Did he support me in speech or in the Division Lobby?

Mr. Marples: For once the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in an interruption. What was known in 1951 was not necessarily known in 1946, five years before.

Mr. Silverman: But I said it.

Mr. Marples: It was not necessarily a fact. That was the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
I turn to the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). She was extremely frank. She said, "I plead guilty" and she changed her mind—something which I am told is not unknown with both sexes. She said that emotion entered into the matter and she could not understand why it should. I can tell her that a very great Conservative once said that this country is not governed by logic but by Parliament and that Parliament is frequently moved by emotion and not necessarily by logic. Perhaps in the affairs of human beings it is better that way in the long run.
The right hon. Lady said that she had changed her mind, but I must say that when I saw her name on the Paper in support of the Amendment I was a little surprised. I thought that I would do a little research into the line which she had taken as Minister. She has the advantage of being the only married woman ever to be in charge of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Houghton: May I point out that my right hon. Friend's name is. not down in support of the Amendment?

Mr. Marples: I think it is.

Mr. Houghton: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Marples: I am most grateful to be allowed to 'be right for once, and I thank the hon. Gentleman.
In 1950 when the right hon. Lady was in charge—I make this comment in no bitter way—she replied, or got her private Secretary to reply, to the Organising Secretary of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She wrote on 19th July, or her private secretary did, in terms which were quite categorical. This is a most remarkable change of front now that she is in opposition.
On 19th July, six weeks after she received their letter, she replied. This was not a hasty reply or an answer to a supplementary question or to an interruption in debate. It was a considered reply. She, or her private secretary, said:
Dr. Summerskill feels that there is not much that can be added to the arguments in that Report …
That is the Beveridge Report. She added that the Beveridge Report laid down why married women were treated differently, and she said:
As the Beveridge Report points out, the needs of the gainfully occupied housewife who herself becomes unemployed or al, are in general less than those of a single woman.… The principle underlying the differential rate of benefit for the married woman is carried to its logical conclusion in the provision of the full rate of benefit to those married women who are responsible for their own maintenance.
Clearly, if she has changed her mind now, it is a complete about turn. I do not know whether she intends to vote for the Amendment, but I should think that she would not do that.
I come to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He objected in principle. I might ask whether he objected in 1946 as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did. I do not know, but I wonder whether he raised his voice or registered his vote, because the principle has not changed since.
He made one point of fact. I am not sure that I heard him aright, but if I did, he said that men and women pay the same contribution and get the same benefit. In fact they do not. Men will be


paying 6s. 4d. a week and women will be paying 5s. 3d. a week. With the customary chivalry with which men treat, women, the men pay more. Therefore the only difference arises between the married woman and the spinster. They both pay the same rates and both draw different benefits but, fortunately, the difference is not between men and women but between spinsters and married women. I think that I am right in that.

Mr. Mitchison: May I first assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I, at any rate, am not too old to learn? Secondly, I did use the words to which he referred. I hope that they were clear in the context, because I devoted a considerable part of my speech to dealing with the fact that the married woman does pay a smaller contribution, as does the unmarried woman.

Mr. Marples: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
He made the further point that, on entering the Scheme married women did not really know what benefits they would draw, or that they would draw reduced benefits. Paragraph 15 of the leaflet to which he referred gives brief information about what a married woman gets if she enters, and what she cannot get if she does not enter. I think the leaflet is clear on that, but, if it is not, I promise that, when the pamphlets are reissued when this Measure is passed, I will see that the point is brought out.
The main reasons for the discrimination, as it has been called, are these. The first is that husband and wife are, ordinarily, considered as a team. During the wife's unemployment or sickness they are not without earnings. The benefits need not, therefore, be such as to meet all the needs of the wife. The Amendment ignores the husband's duty to provide for his wife. Because of the husband's earnings, the argument that, when earnings cease, there should be one universal rate of benefit, regardless of individual circumstances, cannot really be applied to married women.
The second reason against the acceptance of the Amendment is that the married woman may choose not to pay the contribution; she can opt out of the Scheme and not pay the contribution or draw the benefit. If she chooses to pay

it is likely to be, if I may say so with respect, an option against the Fund. By that I mean that she will only pay if she thinks that she will be able to get as much, or more, from the Fund as she puts in. That is an ordinary human reaction.
A single woman cannot so choose. She must be in. That is the difference between the two. Just over a quarter of married women over 25 are employed, and considerably more than half of them opt out of the Scheme. Compared with the total of married women in the country there are not very many in the Scheme. The hon. and learned Member is right. but we must get this in its right perspective.

Mrs. Mann: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that nearly all of these single women do marry at some time or other, and all the money that they have put into the Fund has been accumulating? We therefore have them either way—married or single.

Mr. Marples: In fairness to the spinsters—from whom I have received about three green cards today—I must say that I cannot agree that most single women marry in the end. I have had considerable experience of certain organisations which are very tenacious indeed with regard to the spinsters' particular interests.
A universal rate for women—because, generally speaking, the contributions of women are considered as a separate fund and the benefits to women are paid out of it—would involve increasing the compulsory rate of contribution for the single woman, in order to help the married woman who already has the right not to pay. The increased contribution which this Amendment would call for would be a total of 5½d. a week divided between employer and employee with regard to class I women, and 3d. a week for class II women. This would, therefore, be an expensive Amendment.
Another point is that, if the married woman was given the same rate, consideration would necessarily have to be given to other matters, as it would alter the existing balance of the Scheme. First of all, consideration would have to be given to whether the married women should have the right of option. Secondly, consideration would necessarily have to


be given to the conditions of payment, and I am certain that no hon. Member would like to return to the old married women's Anomalies Regulations. At any rate, consideration must be given to the conditions if we are to alter the rate.
10.30 p.m.
This Bill deals with rates and not conditions. The balance of the Scheme ought not to be altered lightly without a thorough investigation of the facts, and I do not think that in this Measure we ought to touch the structure of the Scheme; we should deal only with the rates. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West

and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will not press this Amendment to a Division. We have had a most interesting, stimulating and jovial debate, but after having heard the figures which I have given, I hope the Committee will think it wiser not to divide. I hope, also, that the right hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
Question put, That the words "not being a married woman" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 10.

Division No. 9]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Duthie, W. S.
Lambton, Viscount


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leather, E. H. C.


Armstrong, C. W
Errington, Sir Erie
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Erroll, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)



Foll, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Barlow, Sir John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwym (Wirral)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Foster, John
Longden, Gilbert



Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. O. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKibbin, A. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Glover, D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Goddber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Braine, B. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hen. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Brooman-While, R. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Honncastle)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Bullard, D. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marples, A. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Haris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Campbell, Sir David
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Carr, Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mellor, Sir John


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Molson, A. H. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cole, Norman
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neave, Airey


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hope, Lord John
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crouch, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Oakshott, H. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Odey, G. W.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Page, R. G.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peake, Rt, Hon. D




Perkins, Sir Robert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turner, H. F. L


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Turton, R. H.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pitman, I. J.
Soames, Capt. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, R. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakenfield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Ramsden, J. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Redmayne, M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Renton, D. L. M.
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C


Ridsdale, J. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminstor)


Robertson, Sir David
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)




Roper, Sir Harold
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Teeling, W.
Wills, G.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Schofield, Lt.-Col W
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wood, Hon. R.


Scott, R. Donald
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John Victor


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)



Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, William
Tilney, John
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Toutche, Sir Gordon





NOES


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)



Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Monslow, W.
Mr. Sydney Silverman and


Delargy, H. J.
Swingler, S. T.
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Foot, M. M.
Yates, V. F.



Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Fifth Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am sure that the House does not want to hear a long speech from me in commendation of the Bill at this stage, but before we finally part with it I should like to express my personal thanks to my hon. Friends behind me who have given so much silent support to the Measure during the two days of the Committee stage, when we have been pressed to pass the Bill in the time allocated to it. I should also like to thank right hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and hon. Members opposite for their help in getting the Bill through its various stages in the time available. I am particularly grateful to them in that they have not put down a great many Amendments which they might well have tabled to make it more difficult for me to get the Bill through in the time.
Lastly, I should like to say a word of thanks to what are called the "back room boys," the civil servants of my Department, who have worked so hard in the preparation of this Measure and the

speed of whose work seems on occasion to have tested even the credulity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Without their help and devoted labours, it would not have been possible to have prepared this Measure and to have presented it to the House for passage into law in the very short time in which that has been done. With those words, I commend for its Third Reading this great Measure of social reform.

10.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having recognised that at each stage we on this side have tried to do our best to expedite the passing of this Bill. Even before the Bill was framed, we did apply pressure. At the same time, we are sorry that he has not thought fit to accept even one of our Amendments. I thought that on the last Amendment he might have tried to make a really big gesture, but now the time has gone.
Nevertheless, despite our difficulties, we on this side of the House are pleased that a Measure—an interim Measure, we would call it—has been introduced to help towards improving the lot of the old people in the coming months. We are, however, sorry also that he has not thought fit to say we may have a larger Bill, which is now very much overdue. After Christmas, bearing in


mind our representations, we hope that he will be able to say that he has decided to do something which will embody the Phillips' recommendations.
One last point. The Minister has told us that five months will pass before this legislation is translated into increased pensions. I would ask him to remember what we have said about bringing pressure to bear on the printers and all those concerned with producing the necessary documents. He can do that and, if he will, I am sure that the old-age pensioners of this country will feel extremely grateful.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I regret that I cannot join entirely in this air of harmony which appears to pervade the House on this Third Reading. I do not know if this is a personal view, or whether I carry one or two of my hon. Friends with me in making it, but the way in which this Bill has been introduced and the treatment accorded to the old-age pensioners prompt me to ask why this House does not exercise its rights in examining how these pensions should be paid.
It is a disgraceful travesty of the procedure of this House, and I am sorry that there has been no protest from our own Front Bench.

Dr. Morgan: Always a rebel.

Mr. Bing: This is one of the free Parliaments—and there are not many of them today—but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) would not have been Prime Minister had some of the hon. Members opposite been able to find someone more suitable to their own point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Send him a telegram."] Well, perhaps we might, and he could look among his files, but we are now discussing a very serious subject; nothing less than the whole shape of pensions for a period to come.
It is all very well for us to pass over this Measure in the way we have, but we are to some degree committed to a certain course. We have, in a rather curious way, got over the quinquennial review, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) has called attention to the fact that we have done that in an appendix to this Bill. But why are we asking the

ordinary people to insure right hon. and hon. Members opposite against a degree of unemployment which they propose to-introduce? What we are really doing is shifting a burden from the shoulders of the Treasury on to the shoulders of the less well paid members of the community.
We rejoice that at last we are doing something to relieve the old-age pensioners. Perhaps we shall assist them to catch up with the price of tea—that great example of free enterprise.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And rents.

Mr. Bing: And rents. At the same time as we rejoice, we should remember that we are shifting from the Treasury a burden which the Government themselves admit ought to be borne by the Treasury. I put down a Question a few days ago to discover exactly what would be the saving made by the Bill to National Assistance. It is £16 million. The Treasury contribution is £24 million. In other words, the Treasury is giving £8 million and is demanding from the poorest members of the community £77 million in contributions from working people. That is Conservative fair shares for all. How do the Government get that proposal through? By threatening us, saying that if we dare to expose it the old-age pensioners will not get their money. And the Third Reading of the Bill must take place at this time of night.
It is worth while considering who do pay for the old people, the sick, the unemployed. The people who pay are, first, the sick and the unemployed themselves, if they have some savings. It is from them the Government are going to take 1s. a week, from their savings which the Minister himself admits, in his White Paper, play such an important part in relieving the old-age pensioners, in relieving sickness and unemployment. Those are the people most in need, and they are being deprived of 1s. a week in extra contributions. If the poorest person can afford 1s. a week contribution to superannuation and insurance in private enterprise insurance, he will not be able to afford that 1s. a week now.
How are old people, unemployed people, sick people most maintained? They are most maintained—and it is quite right, and it is a credit to our country that it should be so—by their families and their relations. On whom,


therefore, does the extra contribution most fall? It most falls on the family which is the worst off and which is maintaining among its units one old, one sick, one disabled person. Suppose there are three or four poorly paid persons docked each 1s. a week. The worst off class get only 2s. 6d. extra on top of their National Assistance supplement. Who are the people who are supported by National Assistance?
The sum which, up to now, was paid entirely by the Treasury is now transferred on to the shoulders, practically speaking, of the employee who contributes. I say "practically speaking" because there is a curious attitude of mind, exhibited by the Minister of Health when he spoke in our debates on the Bill. He said "Look, here is a firm. You must remember the firm is contributing for, say, 20 or 30 workmen, and so paying 20 or 30 contributions. Suppose it increases its capital, increases its machinery. It may need to employ only 10 or 15 people." Its expenses go down and it can make a bigger profit. In other words, 10 or 15 people are thrown out of work and the firm gets rid of 10 or 15 contributions to the cost of those people's unemployment. That is a system which the party opposite presents to us as the most logical and perfect of any system in the world.
We are presented with a scheme which is actuarially nonsense. [Interruption.] I am glad to see I am having some support from the opposite side of the House, because the first thing hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking the poorest people in the community to do is to underwrite their policy and to pay for 4 per cent. unemployment. Why? Because, presumably, the party opposite considers that this is the rate of unemployment there ought to be. What other justification is there for it?
Secondly, his contribution to the Treasury is trebled. Looking at it on an actuarial basis, the people who ought to pay more are those who are, on the whole better off, the self-employed class, because they, generally speaking, embrace the better-off people in society and they ought to pay proportionately a higher contribution because they do not have to pay unemployment insurance. I say this especially to the Chief Whip, who at

present has the ear of the Minister, as he is one of the self-employed class. What happens? Instead of increasing actuarially their contribution, a great increase is made in the Treasury contribution. And the person who pays most, as has been said often in this debate, is the person who is the lowest-paid worker, somebody who can claim no Income Tax relief against his payment.
And this system is put forward to us at the very time when we ought not to have been passing an interim Measure. The time for that was a year ago. If we are to pass a final Measure, the time for it is now, when we have the quinquennial review. Yet, here we are, at this period of time, passing this Measure. It is a shabby and miserable Bill which has been passed through this House by blackmailing hon. Members by saying, "Unless you pass this Bill the old people will not get anything more in six months' time."
I cannot think why hon. Gentlemen opposite were not so certain of their majority that they would say, "We will plan nevertheless, and we will give Parliament an opportunity to discuss the matter." But the one thing that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted was to prevent Parliamentary discussion of this matter in one way or another.
I do not think that anybody can regard the passing of this Measure, the method by which it is being passed, the way in which it is being hurried through, all the circumstances surrounding it, with anything other than a feeling that this is detracting from our Parliamentary methods. I regret the method by which it is being passed. I rejoice that at last the party opposite have been persuaded to do something for the old people by raising the benefits, but on balance I think it is a deplorable method by which to pass legislation, and I hope that this one protest will prevent an attempt to blackmail the House of Commons in a similar way again.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have no intention at this time of night, or after the debates we have had, of subjecting the House once more to an analysis of the provisions of the Bill. I would not have thought it necessary to detain the House at all but for the extraordinary way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance pro-


posed the Motion which the House is now considering.
If the right hon. Gentleman had recommended us to accept the Third Reading of this Measure as a belated, halting, shabby, mean but, nevertheless, small and genuine contribution to relieving the most pressing needs of old-age pensioners, I would have been content to let it go in this way, but when the Minister asks us to pass the Third Reading of this Bill on the basis that it is a great Measure of social reform, that is too much for him to expect to get away with in silence.
This is not a great Measure of social reform, and the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it is. It was humbug for him to say so. He did not mean a word of it. But it sounded a nice round phrase with which to round off these last two days of debate. So far from it being a great Measure of social reform, it only sets out to take the old-age pensioners back to where they were eight years ago—and that is the Tory Government's idea of a great social reform.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Where you left it in 1951.

Mr. Silverman: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not heard the Second Reading debate. He ought to be a much more loyal supporter of the Government, sitting where he does, than he appears to be, because the Government did not say a single word about taking the old-age pensioner back to where he was in 1951. That is not the ground on which they recommended the Measure to the House. They recommended it on the ground that it is a great Measure of social reform, conceived by a Tory Government in 1954, to put the old-age pensioners back to where the Labour Party left them in 1946. That is their idea of a great social advance.
The question we are considering is where the Tory Government, with this great Measure of social reform is leaving them now. It is leaving them where we left them in 1946. That is their idea of an advance in social reform. We do not regard that as an advance. In our simple way of looking at things, it is going back eight years. That is what they call an advance.
But how do they do it? In order to put the old-age pensioners back where

they were in 1946, they begin by taking 1d. more a week out of every insured workman's contribution to the Industrial Injuries Act. Having done that, they add another 11d. to the Social Insurance Scheme contribution, on the basis that this will make it actuarially sound. Then in the debates they point out that it is not actuarially sound, that it never will be, and that it is not an insurance scheme at all. I do not want to prolong the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on, you like it."] We on this side all understand it, while some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side are too stupid to understand it, and some are too hypocritical to admit what they understand. So it is really not worthwhile at this time of night to go on labouring the point.
The fact of the matter remains that at the end of the day we are beginning, over one small section of the field, and only over one small section in the case of the old-age pensioners, to get back to where we were in 1946, at the expense—be it noted—of the other contributors to the Fund, who bear the bulk of the financial burden imposed by the Measure. I do not propose to oppose the Third Reading. Perhaps some hon. and right hon. Members may be relieved to know that. Let it go. We cannot delay the old-age pension. We have to submit to this. There is nothing else we can do, because the old people really cannot wait, but, if we are submitting to blackmail, let us, at any rate, not submit to hypocrisy and humbug, and let us not pretend that this is a great Measure of social reform.

11.5 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: There are two usual kinds of Third Reading debate. In one the Opposition congratulates the Minister on his skill in piloting the Bill through the House, on the generous way in which he has met the Opposition's request for reasonable Amendments, and thanks him for allowing the Opposition to make improvements in his Bill. This Third Reading debate cannot be one of that kind. The other main kind is one in which the Opposition stages a last-ditch fight against a Measure which it loathes. This cannot be a debate of that kind. It is somewhere in between the two.
I should like briefly to re-emphasise some of the points that we have been


trying to make in these two days of debate. We should have liked more time to improve the Bill. We should have liked more time to discuss the anomalies behind the whole problem of National Insurance. I hope that we shall get a proper opportunity of discussing the questions, very early in the New Year, on which we have only touched. The immediate problems of old age, the gravity of some of the anomalies that have been revealed in these brief debates, are problems that cannot wait long for solution.
My second observation is that the Bill is six months late. The Third Reading should have taken place in June, and round about this time we should be celebrating, not the Third Reading of the Bill, but the first payments to the old-age pensioners of money which the whole House very early in the year agreed was rightfully their due.
Even in the two days in which we have debated the Bill we could have improved it. We have asked the Minister to make concessions. Even just before the Third Reading we were making a last appeal to the Minister to give us a minor concession. He has given us nothing. I must be fair. The one real concession that has been made is that he has promised that the National Insurance Advisory Committee will look into the really serious problem of the widows and we can expect some consideration of poor widows early in the New Year.
The Bill should be considered side by side with what the Minister is doing to National Insurance. The fundamental fault of the Bill is that it does not give the greatest help to the people in greatest need. The people in greatest need among the old folk are the old folk who are getting National Assistance. In May, every Member of the House will be approached byold folk in his constituency. They will say "I have been given an increase under the new Act "—as it will be then—" in my basic pension and National Assistance has taken 5s. of it away."
That is because the basic pension has been increased by much more than we are increasing the National Assistance benefit. It is all very well to attempt to explain to old persons next May, as hon. Members will attempt, that although

we stepped up National Assistance by only half-a-crown—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that National Assistance is mentioned in the Bill, is it?

Dr. King: I am sorry, Sir. I am trying to make clear what will he the reaction of the poorest old-age pensioners to the actual increases they will get compared with what is in the Bill. They will be apparently losing some of it at the moment the first payments are made.
Since I cannot pursue this topic, I welcome what the Bill is proposing to do for the old folk in five months' time. I spend, as other hon. Members do, some portion of Christmas and the New Year Recess visiting old folks' clubs in my part of the country. Old folk ask for very little. They shame the younger generation by their gratitude, courage, and cheerfulness. I wish that hon. Members visiting Darby and Joan clubs this Christmas could say not only, "Your increased pensions are coming somewhere in the New Year" but "The first payment of the new pensions is coming this Christmas time."
The other serious criticism of the Bill concerns the problem of who is to pay for most of the increased benefits. Most of the new money is coming from the workers and the employers. I sometimes suspect that the reason for the delay over bringing forward this Bill was not uncertainty of the Minister or the Government about by how much they should raise the old-age pensions, for that was made clear by our debates early this year, but how much they could charge the worker and employers.
The Bill is bad in that it is making the contributions to be borne by workers and employers a heavier burden than they ought to be, and especially a burden on the lowest-paid workers, and even on the 10s. widows. Seeing a Tory Minister piloting a pensions Bill through the House, one cannot help feeling that the Socialist movement is steadily permeating the Tory Party. I wonder what Keir Hardie would have said had someone told him that one day a Tory Minister of Pensions would introduce a Bill of this kind, or that there would be Tories administering, one by one, the Ministries of the great Welfare State which we are building thanks to a half century of Socialist advocacy.
We on this side of the House can justly claim that we have spurred the Government throughout the year to do something for the old-age pensioners. It is still our duty to spur the Government to speed up payment in the New Year. I believe that members of the administrative machine will respond to appeals to them to speed preparation of the machinery for payment of the new pensions. They will work with a will if only the Government give the right lead; and if the Minister will personally convey to his staff that he earnestly wants the pensions paid earlier than the date which he has mentioned in the House. I am sure they will respond.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have listened to nearly every speech in the debate and on nearly every Amendment which has been moved. I, too, am impressed by the fact that a Conservative Government now recognise that the Welfare State is an integral part of the British Constitution. I am old enough to remember the first debates on old-age pensions in this House in the time of a Liberal Government. I remember that when the first meagre old-age pensions were brought in by Mr. Asquith's Government, members of the party opposite opposed them on the ground that they would discourage thrift.
I congratulate the party opposite on having at last introduced this Bill, and I do not wish to oppose the Third Reading. I would, however, say that the Bill ought to have been introduced earlier. It ought to have been brought in last year. I believe that it is only the pressure of public opinion in the country, and of public opinion expressed through the Opposition here, that has made the Government decide to rush through, at the last moment, this slap-dash measure.
Of course, we welcome any improvement in the status of the old-age pensioner, although I should have liked to see a more generous Bill. The fact remains that the country expected to see the provisions of the Bill in the Chancellor's Budget. The Bill has taken its place at the end of the queue. It is being rushed through by Christmas. The Government could have faced the various problems which have arisen if they had given the same priority to social insurance as they gave to commercial television and other subjects which had first place in the queue.
It is only at the last hour of almost the last day before Christmas that the Bill has been rushed through. When we examine the way in which the money is to be collected for the pensions we see that the Measure is a hotch-potch of anomalies which will become more and more obvious as time goes on. I refer not only to old-age pensions but to the part of the Bill which vitally affects my own constituents, the industrial injuries section.
It is shameful that the Minister has allowed only £1 7s. 3d. a week for special hardship for miners who are crippled in giving their best to the country. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) remarked during the early stages of the Bill that the Minister was a bad Minister and a bad man. I thought that was rather uncharitable but as I listened to the debate about industrial injuries I came to the conclusion that my hon. Friend was not too uncharitable and that he was right in his strictures. It is shocking to think that all that this House can give to a miner whose back has been broken while working in the industry is a special allowance of £1 7s. 3d. and that the Minister rejected the comparatively small sum of £2 a week.
We know that there is an electioneering purpose behind the Bill. We are told that it had to be delayed so long because the Government had to wait for the Phillips Report and the Report of the Actuary. We know that is so much eyewash and whitewash. We know that as time goes on the position will be exposed. The people will see that the Opposition—especially the unofficial Opposition below the Gangway—has done its duty by criticising every detail, a course it proposes to follow in respect of every piece of legislation that comes along. If the Opposition, of which we still regard ourselves as a loyal part, fails, we shall not.
When old-age pensioners realise the very large numbers who are not affected by the Bill, and the hundreds of thousands who will merely get paltry additions when they expect justice, we shall enter an era of disillusionment. When it is apparent that, instead of facing the position, as it should have been faced, by making the Exchequer pay its part of the bill, the Government are juggling with the rate of contributions, the country will realise that the opposition to the


Bill has been justified, that we have tried our best to be helpful at every stage, and that our constructive criticism has been rejected by a hard-hearted, niggardly Minister, and a Government, who do not realise the extent of the social problem with which they are faced.

11.20 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I have always been interested in these matters, not only in industrial insurance but in the whole field of insurance, since, like other hon. Members on these benches, I represent many industrial workers. I would not have the presumption to say that mine is the only voice of protest.
During the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill, my hon. Friends have shown clearly their disappointment at many parts of the Measure. Time after time my hon. Friends have shown forcibly how disappointed they have been by what the Minister has called a great social Measure. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that I deprecate his division of what he calls the unofficial Opposition below the Gangway from the rest of the Opposition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not our fault.

Mr. S. Silverman: We did not divide it.

Miss Herbison: What I am referring to is the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, in regard to a Bill on which Members on this side of the House have put up the strongest fight. One should consider all the Amendments that have been put on the Paper by hon. Members on this side—the hon. Members who had done a great deal of work and planning in connection with this subject before the Bill reached the Committee stage. I esteem my hon. Friends, for having worked overtime on this vital matter, in which we are extremely interested.
We feel strongly that in the financing of this Measure the Minister has taken the meanest way out. He has put the burden of paying for increased benefits on the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. Many of us have felt for a long time that the lowest wage-earners are carrying a heavier burden of insurance contributions than they are

able to bear; yet these are the people who are to be asked to pay another 1s. a week contribution.
We have heard from the Government of great prosperity and increased production, although I would point out that increase in production has been much less than it was under the Labour Government. Surely these lower wage-earners have the right to benefit from this increased production. This Bill shows quite clearly that the Government have no intention of giving to the worse-off section of our people a chance of benefiting from the prosperity which they have played a great part in producing.
We have been blackmailed into hurrying this Bill through. We have brought out as forcibly as possible in the short time at our disposal our objections to this Bill, but we have also felt that, because the old people are going to benefit, we should do our best to help the Government to get the Bill through. There is still a long part of this winter to come, and I know in my constituency many old people who are really on the verge of destitution.
It seems heartless and completely wrong that the Government should say they cannot, administratively, give to these old people before April the increase to which this Bill will entitle them. If something had to be done for the defence of this country we would not be asked to wait until April to bring it about. What we can do, quite rightly, for the defence of our country we have the same onus on us to do for the old people. I beg of the Minister—who, I feel sure, will have the support of those who take part in the administration of this Measure—to give the increases to the old people as early as possible in the New Year. It is not a great increase, but at least it will take them from the verge of destitution.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. McKay: I am sorry to have to intervene, but we have sat here late at night on much more trivial matters than this Bill. After all our efforts to amend the Bill we shall pass it unanimously, but what is important is what the general discussion has brought out. Has it brought out any new points to guide us in future? I think it has.
When we speak of the cost of living in relation to old-age pensioners the cost of


coal is often mentioned, and in future, when considering Bills such as this, we shall have to have regard to the costs which we are placing on the extractive and transport industries. I know something about the mining industry and I know that in the coal industry this contribution will amount to 2½d. or 3d. per ton. Whatever people may say about the cost of coal, this Bill will place a burden on the coal industry which it is scarcely able to bear. The same applies to the railways, which at the moment have difficulty in meeting reasonable claims by their employees.
Whilst industry generally may be in a prosperous condition, when we take a general view we are apt to forget that there are units which are not in the happy position generally obtaining. That is likely to continue, and we must try to get some scheme of insurance which would tend to put the responsibility and extra cost—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would remind the hon. Member that the debate is limited to matters which are in the Bill and we cannot go beyond that on Third Reading.

Mr. McKay: I thought I should be in order in explaining the effect of the increased contributions. That is all I was trying to do, and I will leave that subject now, as I have indicated what I mean. We must try to stop the burden being put on big industries employing a tremendous number of people, and which are having difficulty in keeping their heads above water, and get whatever finances we can from sources which will not affect those industries.
I want to give credit also to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). We are not very good friends politically, but I like to give credit where it is due. The hon. Lady emphasised that while we are placing the extra burden of contributions upon the workers, the highest-paid workers will get nearly half their contribution returned to them by way of exemption from Income Tax. That is something to Which we are bound to give consideration in the future when we seek to solve the problem of making the highest-paid workers pay as much as the lower-paid workers. It is vital that when we consider these matters in the future they should be properly analysed.
While we on this side of the House have all been prepared to help the Bill through, realising the necessity of the increased benefits for the people who are to get them, the Government have been too hard and fast in their attitude of suggesting that they know all about the subject and that their drafting and ideas were so perfect that no amendment to the Bill could be justified.
I was surprised that I did not have the support of lady Members when I raised the question of benefits for widows. The basis of the Bill alone shows that theirs is a case that should be recognised. When we asked for an increase for them in the same way—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not in the Bill; therefore, we cannot discuss it now. I would ask the hon. Member to keep to what is in the Bill. That is all that is before the House at the moment.

Mr. McKay: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I regret that it is not in the Bill. I have not your experience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to know always how to keep in order. The Government's general attitude on the small Amendments that we have suggested has not been satisfactory, and I do not think it has been fair to the people whom they represent.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that it is not the fault of anyone on this side of the House that the Bill cannot receive the wholehearted approbation which we would have liked. The reason is that we have had in Charge of the Bill a Minister who has said "No" as many times as Mr. Molotov has said it. I doubt whether in the history of this House a Bill that was so important, affecting so many people, has made its way through Committee without the Minister accepting one single constructive Amendment from the Opposition. This might as well have been the Reichstag for all the influence our arguments have had.
The Minister has sat there immutable and immovable, refusing to make the least concession. I hope that when we introduce a Bill in the future, when we occupy those benches, we shall remember the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because it is quite obvious that


this Conservative Government had made up their mind that they were not going to make any single concession to the Opposition.
Of course, the Minister does not appreciate the anger and the disappointment which there will be in this country next April. One million out of the 4 million pensioners are going to get little or no benefit out of this Bill after it has become law, and in a constituency like mine the proportion will be considerably higher than one in four.
After all, the folk aged 65 or over in Jarrow have gone through some lean and miserable years. Those folk were denied the right to work, and because they were denied that right they were also denied the ability to save. The lives of these people have always been haunted by poverty, and in April they will still face poverty because they are people receiving National Assistance, and they are not to get as much as others will get from this Bill.
What would it have cost if the Minister had agreed to give increased National Assistance benefits? It would have cost, so we have been told, about £27 million; or about 3d. in the £ of what we are spending on national defence. Poverty, as well as war, kills people; it kills just as guns kill people, and there are many lives cut short because of the anxiety and despair of a grinding poverty. Yet, with a miserable £27 million—and it is a miserable sum out of a total Budget of about £4,500 million a year—the Minister could have done so much.
He should be ashamed that he has not given to the people most desperately in need the same measure of help as others are to get. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will encourage the anger; I hope that they will conduct a campaign so that the Minister will have to give way and amend the Regulations in order that these people may get the justice to which they are entitled.
I share the disappointment which has been voiced about the Minister refusing to make this Bill operative before the date which he has announced. As I indicated last night, if this country were suddenly confronted with a war, that would entail the calling up of hundreds of thousands of people, and the billeting

of many thousands of children. Would the administrative machine then take so long getting into operation that it would deny paybooks to men called up? Would it deny allowances to their wives? Would the people billeting the children in other districts find that those caring for the children were denied their fees?
Of course not. Everybody knows that there would be almost a general riot if such things happened. Where there is a will there is a way, and, if the Minister were well-intentioned, and determined, he could make this Bill operative much sooner that he is going to do.
I have been reading "Picture Post" this week—I believe it was "Picture Post," I may be wrong. However, I saw in that or another paper an account of the organisation of Littlewood's. I am not a pool fan, but Littlewood's could give the Minister a lesson or two in how to send out money quickly. That firm deals every week with millions of separate claims. Within 72 hours anyone who has any money coming receives it. I think it would be a sensible thing in these circumstances if the Minister would get in touch with the football pools and ask them about their administration and how efficiently they do their job. From them he might learn a lesson or two.
I am disappointed with that part of the Bill which deals with industrial injuries. I have never understood why it is that the ordinary man or woman working in industry, and who is crippled or maimed at work, has to pay, on top of a physical penalty, a financial penalty that is not universally applied. If a miner is injured, straight away his income drops. A civil servant who is injured does not have his income cut. He gets his salary month after month, even though an accident has befallen him.
I have never understood why there should be this discrimination in our society. The people most affected are the people who are most essential. Miners, steel-workers, transport workers. engineers—they are the foundation of our society. Others are only coping stones. Remove the miners and such workers and the whole edifice of our society will collapse. The civil servant, for one or two years after his accident, receives his full pay. So do many people employed in local government. Why miners, dockers, railwaymen, who meet with an


accident in their employment are not entitled to enjoy their full wages, I do not know.
This Bill, which will improve, to some extent, the lot of some 4¼ million people, is not good enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North intimated, the country is booming. We are told the country has never been in better fettle, with profits up, exports up, production up, wages up, dividends up—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Tea and rents up.

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, tea and rents are up too. The social services are not keeping pace.

Mr. S. Silverman: These benefits are back to 1946.

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the Minister will try to bring the Bill into operation sooner than he has said he can. If he does not—I repeat what I said last night—there will be many stories told round about 25th December about Mr. Scrooge. Unless the Minister is prepared to think again about the timing of the operation of these benefits, he may go down in political history as Mr. Scrooge of 1954.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I shall not detain the House more than a few moments, but before the Bill is passed I wish to say how it neglects one class of people in this country, namely, the widows. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) warned the Government that, although we welcome this inadequate Bill so far as it goes, there will be a terrible disillusionment in April. If my postbag is anything to go by, the disillusionment has begun already.
In the City of Dundee, which I have the honour to represent, we have more widows than in any other city in Scotland, and Dundee being a mill town, they are well able to speak for themselves. Already they are beginning to write,

saying how much this Bill neglects their interests and betrays them.
We were glad to have a fairly sympathetic approach from the Minister yesterday to the question of the widows who receive only 10s., though I beg leave to doubt in the end how far the sort of ideas which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have in his mind will meet their position. But the widows who receive 10s. do not look forward even in April—even after five months—to any increase in their present woefully inadequate 1925 pension.
In April, what will happen to them is that their condition, instead of being even a little better, will be actually worse. They will have to pay a larger contribution, and many of them are in only part-time occupations, in school kitchens, and so on. All the anomalies which apply to the widows of this country, which hon. Members in all parts of the House deplore, are being perpetuated in this Bill because the Government have delayed bringing it in for so long that, as my hon. Friends have said again and again, the House of Commons is being blackmailed into pushing through a Measure which perpetuates these anomalies. It would not be right if this Bill were to pass through the House of Commons without some attention being drawn to the glaring anomalies that are being continued in this Bill.
We on this side of the House can take some credit that we have acted as the vehicle of public opinion, and have at least prodded the Government into bringing in this Measure, however belatedly, and however much they are rushing it through. For that reason we give it a qualified welcome, but we issue a warning that these anomalies are being continued, and that the country will one day become aware of the price they are going to pay for these Conservative electoral tactics.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:

Mr. Driberg, Mr. Ian Harvey, Mr. Holman, Lieutenant-Colonel Hyde, Mr. Langford-Holt, Mr. Nally, Mr. John Rodgers, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Storey, Mrs. Eirene White, and Mr. Gerald Williams:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quoroum.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Lords Message [7th December] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. T. G. D. Gailbraith.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — GRASSLAND (RESEARCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I make no apology for calling the attention of the House at this late hour to the necessity for further research into our grasslands. There is no doubt that grass is the most important crop which we grow in this country, and it is unfortunate that so many people think that, because a field is green, it is covered with good grass. There is no doubt that during the last 50 years a great deal of research has taken place, but I still feel that there is a great deal which yet remains to be done.
I think it was most unfortunate that early in this century the then Board of Agriculture advised against the use of nitrogen for the improvement of our grassland. In this present generation we owe a great deal to the work that has been done by Sir George Stapledon and his colleagues at Aberystwyth; and that work is still being carried on. At the Ministry's grassland research station at Hurley, near Maidenhead, Dr. William Davies is still continuing that work, and bringing to us further knowledge about better cultivation of our grasslands.
I think it is rather unfortunate that the majority of this advanced research work is not being done by the Ministry, but by private enterprise. I know that private enterprise has many advantages over a Government Department in carrying out research work; and that the research workers can do field work, and leave the centre, and perhaps arrive at results more quickly that is possible through the Civil Service. But I do feel that after this work has been carried out the Ministry should see that those results are more widely known.
Today the yield of grass that we get from some of our better farms is astounding. Unfortunately about four-fifths of our grassland is on a very low level. I believe that if only we could bring the majority of this land up to the average yield of our better grassland we could quite easily double our present livestock production. I know that the Ministry


does give advice free to the farming community regarding the requirements of the soil, whether it requires this or that fertiliser, and so on. The Ministry makes grants towards buying lime, basic slag, and other fertilisers.
Not sufficient people are making use of this advanced knowledge, however. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that our best grassland farmers, by applying 4 cwt. of superphosphate to permanent pasture at low level, and 2 cwt. of muriate of potash, then in February and throughout the season applying 12 cwt. of nitro-chalk in three applications of 4 cwt. per acre in March, June and August, can produce sufficient food from an acre for 50 cow days. From an acre of permanent pasture 61½ cwt. of dried grass can be obtained. Off new leys, as advocated and sponsored by Sir George Stapledon, the yield has been as high as five tons, compared with probably a yield of about 20 cwt. an acre off our general permanent pasture. In addition to the harvesting of dried grass, a grazing period is left which gives an average of about 50 cow days to the acre.
I know our weather is very erratic. I know it has a great effect on the amount of grass that is produced. But some of that effect can be overcome by the application of more fertiliser than is used at present. We should have someone in charge of grass utilisation. We can provide the grass, but we want more knowledge about the best way of using it. The cheapest and easiest way to use grass is of course to let stock consume it where it is produced, but it is not possible to do that throughout the whole of the year. We also have to make provision for preserving our grass for the Winter months.
The old method of preserving grass was to make it into hay for feeding in the winter months. Making hay is really drying mature grass stems. Then we have had the development of the better making of silage as a second method of preserving grass for the winter months, and a great advance has been made in that direction. I call to the attention of the House the new method evolved as a result of some work by a Mr. Elmhirst, near Barnsley, in Yorkshire, started in 1950: that is, to make silage by a pickup bag.
Just as the combine harvester was introduced in the early 1930s, we are, in the 1950s, seeing a more efficient way of making silage than anything we have had in the past. By placing an extra sprocket and a little more reinforcement in the baler chamber we can make a bale weighing about 50 lb. to 60 lb. and about 18 inches in length. It compresses the grass, and is picked up immediately behind the grass cutter. In that way it can be picked up and carried back to the homestead, and put in a pit for feeding to the stock in the winter.
It has the advantage that the feed can be taken out in little blocks, and the worker does not have to struggle—as he does at the moment—to cut it out and feed it to the animals. It is also very much easier to control the amount fed to the cattle. I believe this method is coming forward, and in a few years will be the method used.
The third method of preserving grass for winter use is by drying. I believe we are drying about 200,000 tons or 300,000 tons of grass a year for sale. The majority of it is fed to stock, but there are other uses for dried grass. I believe it is used for making nylon. dye-making and I believe it is also used in processes of developing and making atomic energy. There will, no doubt, be uses for dried grass. We should have someone who can tell us which is the best way of utilising our grass when we want to preserve it for the winter months.
We shall require the development of more cold storage because dried grass loses some of its protein content on coming into close contact with warmer air. We shall require cold storage, not only for grass for the winter months, but for preserving grass-fed meat. It will probably prove to be more economic to kill our well-grazed animals—sheep and cattle—in the autumn and preserve them in cold storage than to keep them and feed them throughout the winter months.
Intensive grass farming will result in a new and better balanced agriculture. More livestock can be kept on a fewer acres, and more acres can be devoted to food for direct human consumption. Grass needs water. Our ancestors developed the valley lands, and had wide-


spread areas of water meadows. Unfortunately these, because of the high cost of labour, have almost gone out of existence. There is a future for the development of irrigation by modern methods to ensure that growth shall continue during the dry months.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Will the hon. Member agree that before we start putting water on to land which is too dry we ought to drain the hundreds of thousands of acres of land which are lying under water?

Mr. Crouch: I agree, but I do suggest that, with the use of modern fertilisers and cultivation, our drier chalk land could grow more grass more quickly than low, waterlogged land.
In respect of our corn crops we have been successful, since the war, in developing hormones to destroy weeds. Weeds, unfortunately, are too prevalent in our grasslands. I was interested to learn recently that Messrs. May and Baker, the firm which developed M. & B., which has saved so many lives, particularly from pneumonia, have developed a weed killer for use on grassland which does not destroy the clover. Destruction of the clover has been a great worry to us in the past.
Last week I attended the Smithfield Club's show. Not unnaturally I looked to see what publications were for sale on the stand of the Ministry of Agriculture at that show. In spite of my search, I could find only one publication—an excellent one—on grassland management. I wonder how widely it is read. I notice that it was published in August, 1952, and reprinted in February, 1953. It would be interesting if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could let me know how many copies of this publication have been sold. I should also like him to say whether the Ministry is going to prohibit importation of the dreadful Oregon rye-grass, which is no better than bent. With the good grass seed we have in this country we no longer need to import that type of grass seed.
I would be glad if he would say whether he does not think the time has come when we ought to advertise in the agricultural, provincial, and national Press, the result of the work which has been carried out by our grassland officers.

By continuous and well-placed advertising industry sells its products. We ought to do the same.
By doing much more to advertise the result of the work which has been done, the Minister would achieve much more than he does at present by having officers to chase up farmers to increase production. More will be achieved by encouraging and giving examples than by driving farmers. In my humble opinion, there is no greater asset that the nation can have, that the individual can have, than good, fertile grassland.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) for raising this subject and for being sufficiently brief to enable me to underline one or two of the points he made. I am grateful to him for his reference to the work which we have been doing at Aberystwyth at the plant breeding station during the last 35 years. I refer especially to the work of Sir George Stapledon and his successor Dr. Jenkin and those now responsible for the work of that institution.
That station has just moved to new and far more spacious quarters, and I hope that the Ministry will give every possible assistance to enable the station to expand and to continue its excellent work. It has done particularly good work in the investigation of grass and clover breeding, and the sponsorship of a limited number of high-grade strains. Work which I should like to see having far greater publicity than it has received to date is the work of seed multiplication and distribution. There we have the link between the research side of the station and the purely practical application of that research work.
In my part of the world at the moment we are very conscious of the whole problem of grass utilisation. I was at home last week-end, and we talked in terms of importing into the area by special train thousand's of tons of hay at a time, to keep our stock alive. There is a psychological moment for doing most things. If the Ministry want the co-operation of the farming community in trying to seek the best way of utilising grass in different areas, now is the moment. The farming community is acutely conscious of the need for looking closely into the problem,


in view of the disastrous harvest which we have just had. I hope that the Minister will indicate that something will be done to speed up the research into the whole problem of utilisation, especially in grass drying.

12.7 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) on raising the important and interesting subject of our grassland. I certainly can confirm his statement that grass is indeed our most important crop and that it is, in fact, the basis of our whole farming. The figures showing the area of our grassland make this clear.
In 1939 there were 2·07 million acres of temporary leys; today the figure is 3·87 million. Today there are 1078 million acres of permanent grass; in 1939 there were 15·7 million. Today we have 1465 million acres of grassland as against 17·7 million in pre-war years, and then there is an extra 5·5 million acres of rough grazing. Out of a total of some 30 million acres of agricultural land in England and Wales, It is evident that grassland produces by far our biggest crop.
Our policy is quite definitely to help farmers to make the best use of the crop. Everything we do is devoted to that end. The first link in the chain is the research work. My hon. Friend referred to Aberystwyth and to the grassland station at Hurley. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) also spoke of Aberystwyth. There are some five other research stations also doing most valuable work. I may say straight away that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan need not worry. Aberystwyth represents the hall mark of quality for grass seeds. Any farmer who is thinking about buying grass seeds and can afford the extra money decides to have the Aberystwyth strain. That is an everlasting memorial to the wonderful work which has been and is being done at the Aberystwyth grassland station. The work of Sir George Stapledon is admirably carried on today by Dr. William Davies at the new grassland station at Hurley, and I hope it will continue for many years to come. That is the first link in the chain.
The second link in the chain is the experimental one. That is done primarily at the experimental husbandry farms, of which there are eight—one in each province. They have been set up in these post-war years, and on those farms research work which has been done at the research stations is tried out on a commercial scale to show whether it really works in practice.
In the same way, experimental work on a rather simpler scale is done on farms under the direction of one of the experimental farms or the advisory service direct. The farmer begins to come into the picture a little at this stage. He is invited to open days at experimental farms and on other farms where the same work is going on.
The third link in the chain is the direct link with the farmers. By advice and education from the advisory service, farmers are instructed in the proven methods of the growing, managing and conserving of grass. As to the methods of doing this, in each province there is a provincial grassland husbandry officer, who has a small staff, and it is his particular function to "preach the gospel" in his province. In every county it is the function of the advisory service generally to be available to give advice to farmers who require it on any aspect of grass growing, management or utilisation. I should record that we find an ever-increasing number of farmers make direct inquiries for the information that they want.
I readily admit to my hon. Friend that there are many farmers who still do not make these inquiries, and therefore it is our business to see that this information is disseminated as widely as possible. There are many ways in which this is done. Farm walks are arranged by county agricultural staffs, demonstrations and discussion groups are arranged, and all of them are widely advertised in the local Press.
The whole idea is to attract the farmers, many of whom do not normally seek advice, to come to these walks, demonstrations, or discussions, so that they can learn what is going on, and what technical advice is available to help them to do better on their own farms. Several county scale demonstrations are arranged in each county every year, and. in all, several hundred are arranged throughout the country.
In the last year or two some 350 fertiliser demonstrations have been set up as well on farms, by making use of the funds that the Americans kindly gave us under the Mutual Security Administration. Further, under the Conditional Aid Funds from the United States, we have been doing a large number of silage demonstrations, and I am glad to be able to state that this process of making silage, which is certainly difficult and onerous if it does not go too well, has been making good progress in recent years, and particularly this summer, which was very difficult for hay making. I have not the figures for this year. but it is certain that over 2 million tons was made, which is more than twice as much as five years ago.
It is evident that we are beginning at last to make a little progress in silage making. It is most difficult to get the small farmer to take up the job, but it is really a question of grasping the nettle; if grasped firmly enough a good job is made of it, but if it is done in a half-hearted manner, with poor material, the result is unsatisfactory and uneconomical. Progress is being made, and we shall continue to do all we can to encourage it.
In addition, we have recently made a film on grassland management and utilisation, which takes the example of four typical farms and shows how the farmers have increased profitability by better management of their grassland. It is an excellent film, which will be shown widely in the next 12 months. I am certain it will be attractive, educational and helpful to many thousands of farmers. We are greatly helped in this field by commercial firms, outstanding among them, of course, I.C.I., who have set a wonderful example. It has its own research station; I suppose every farmer in the world knows Jealott's Hill. I.C.I. has other places in the country, and in the last two or three years has done exceptionally good work on the better and

greater use of fertilisers. It has a number of farms for which it keeps accounts, which have been helped to greater profitability by the more scientific use of fertilisers, and has been most helpful in putting over the story in demonstrations. It has also made a film, on similar lines to our own, which is very good indeed.
All this technical work is done to help farmers to improve their grassland management. Added to it we have a considerable range of administrative help starting with the drainage of farms, which is absolutely basic—no farmer in the world can farm against water. We continue with 50 per cent. drainage grants to promote schemes to the value of more than £3 million per annum. We have increased the lime subsidy, with the result that usage of lime has increased about 50 per cent. We have reintroduced the fertiliser subsidy, with the result that usage of fertilisers has increased by 30 per cent. in three years. We have brought in the ploughing-up grant for old pasture at £10 per acre, covering 40,000 acres per annum.
The utilisation of grass is only half the story for when one has grown it there are two objects to realise; the release of more land for higher tillage and the carrying of more stock. It is no use growing additional grass unless one has the stock to put on it, and, by maintaining a high level of guaranteed prices for cattle and sheep we have an increasing head of cattle and sheep in the country. The number of sheep has increased by 2 million since 1951, and the number of calves by about 130,000 in the past year, in England and Wales.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.